Why there can be no "rights"

[NonEntity]

"Once there is a human right, there is a moral obligation to 'respect' it: this is (more-or-less) the definition of a right."

This simple sentence puts to rest the discussion of "positive rights" versus "negative rights,"  as it explains why even a "negative right" implies/requires a "positive right."

This quote is from an interesting piece on "The Golden Rule" which 2i2 pointed me to.  Thanks, dude.

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

NonEntity Wrote:This quote is from an interesting piece on "The Golden Rule" which 2i2 pointed me to.  Thanks, dude.

- NonE

wow -- I really like the title of a couple of the linked essays on that site...

"Why Democracy Is Wrong" ;D
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html">http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Trea ... cracy.html</a><!-- m -->

"The Ethics Of Secession"
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/secession.html">http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Trea ... ssion.html</a><!-- m -->

[learnin2]

There can be no rights, because there can be no respect of rights. Seems to be an underlying philosophy of some here. This is why I love self made morality(which itself, is an oxymoron). Nothing is higher then your self? Then can there be morality?

[tharrin]

Morality is a set of beliefs. It could have been derived from the school of hard knocks learning. I hit you-you hit back. I cheat you-you cheat me. I sleep with your wife you shoot me and your wife. I steal from you-you shoot me. I damage your property-you sue me for recompense.

So it is easy to see that a set of moral beliefs based on factual evaluation of consequences of our actions and interactions with others can be derived from those experiences.

[NonEntity]

tharrin Wrote:Morality is a set of beliefs. It could have been derived from the school of hard knocks learning. I hit you-you hit back. I cheat you-you cheat me. I sleep with your wife you shoot me and your wife. I steal from you-you shoot me. I damage your property-you sue me for recompense. ...

I see that you focus on the positive, as always, Tharrin.   

I think the word you're looking for is not "morality" but rather "retribution."  (Or maybe pouty self-righteous indignation!      :tongue:      )

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

Rights Are Santa Claus by Dabooda February 24, 2011
Source: | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty

[NonEntity]

eye2i2hear Wrote:Rights Are Santa Claus by Dabooda February 24, 2011
Source: | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty

EXCELLENT post! I'll hafta watch out for this writer. And some REALLY DUMB comments, but I guess that just comes with the territory.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

NonEntity Wrote:And some REALLY DUMB comments...

ditto that.

[teacher arrival a bit premature, ya suppose/propose?]

[indio]

Tyranny of the majority is a concept sheeple don't comprehend. The think that democracy means consensus. It's far from it.

[eye2i2hear]

indio Wrote:Tyranny of the majority is a concept sheeple don't comprehend. The[y] think that democracy means consensus. It's far from it.

reminded me of some collected quotes I keep around for Them (paytriots):

Quote:Why should I trade a tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants a mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's freedoms as easily as a king can.
--Mel Gibson's character (Captain Benjamin Martin) in the movie The Patriot, speaking of "The American Revolution"/Rebellion for freedom, paraphrasing the real-life Colonist Mather Byles

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the freedoms of the other forty-nine.
--Thomas Jefferson

The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.
--Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is... tyrannical.
--Thomas Jefferson

*note: I substituted the word "freedoms" for the original of "rights"; and Tommy J quoted merely for paytriot effect (or for potential hypocrisy), but not Authoritarian*

[zonsb]

eye2i2hear Wrote:Rights Are Santa Claus by Dabooda February 24, 2011
Source: | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty

Here’s what I say to people that assume they have unalienable rights. Go into the jungle without a rifle, anti-snake-bite venom-medicine, and disease protection. You’ll find that lions, snakes and viruses have no regards for your supposed unalienable rights. They won’t care about rights nor even acknowledge them. For their law is law of the jungle. They don’t have reason.

Rights only apply to men and women that have chosen to voluntarily agree to associate with one another via rights agreed upon. In short, it is the choice of the rule of reason over the rule of the jungle.

Reason says to put down the rifle and proceed based on reason. When a person violates reason by using initiatory force, threat of force or fraud they have chosen rule of the jungle and abandoned reason. They have chosen to be sub-human.

It is time such as this that wo/man of reason may chose to pick up a rifle in self-defense against the one that comes after you via initiatory force. For they have abandoned reason and taken up arms against you--the reasoned one.

Since they’ve abandoned reason you can’t reasonable expect them to understand why they should put down the rifle and return to full human capacity and use reason rather than remain a subhuman that has abandoned reason. Thus by the dilemma you find yourself in you too must take up rifle and/or ask the community folks to listen to your dilemma and see if they agree to help in your defense.

[eye2i2hear]

zonsb Wrote:Here’s what I say to people ...

I'm honing the approach of comparing the natural (universal/common) laws of gravity and mathematics with the allegation of rights being natural law: I drop a rock to verify the law of gravity. I do this anywhere, with any & every one, and it works the same. I take 3 apples away from 7 apples to verify the 4 remainder apples of math. I do this anywhere, with anyone & every one, and it works the same. I "take a right" from some one and verify The Law... how?!? (much less the relativity/subjectivity of where)?

[zonsb]

eye2i2hear Wrote:

zonsb Wrote:Here’s what I say to people ...

I'm honing the approach of comparing the natural (universal/common) laws of gravity and mathematics with the allegation of rights being natural law: I drop a rock to verify the law of gravity. I do this anywhere, with any & every one, and it works the same. I take 3 apples away from 7 apples to verify the 4 remainder apples of math. I do this anywhere, with anyone & every one, and it works the same. I "take a right" from some one and verify The Law... how?!? (much less the relativity/subjectivity of where)?

Not sure what you intended to say. Rights only exist by agreement/contract with the parties that agree to contract. Contract makes the law.

The law of gravity is superseded by the law of lift. The word "law" exists in mind only as a metaphor for the observed effect of gravity and flight. Yet the effects are real in nature. Two or more minds can agree to create laws and rights among themselves. The laws/rights and particulars of an agreement/contract are real.

Three apples exists as a mind concept or reason. Same for five apples. There is only apple, apple, apple, apple, apple, etc. Gravity exits without reference to mind. Mathematics is a creation of mind. Rights and reason are creations of the mind -- gravity is not. Gravity and mathematics are not the same. They're not both "natural (universal/common) laws.." It's like comparing apples and oranges.

P.S. π (pie) is to mathematics what the 'uncertainty principle' is to physics.

[eye2i2hear]

zonsb Wrote:Not sure what you intended to say. Rights only exist by agreement/contract with the parties that agree to contract. Contract makes the law.

No problem as far as not catching my intent. I'll try to explore it a bit further here. First, essentially, in using the expression "say to people that assume unalienable rights", I think of the typical submitizen, and less of the voluntaryist/mutualist/anarchist (or philosopher even). Thus my offered approach is geared more towards those who haven't contemplated 'rights' or 'The State' beyond what they parrot via Their Education, circa: you're born with 'em, just like with your Citizenship, and they exist just like your State, etc.

That noted, I genuinely disagree with your position argued-- noting here as well, that you and I have been through much of the foundation of this already, so I admittedly don't anticipate much changing; thus more for the general audience...

Quote:The law of gravity is superseded by the law of lift. The word "law" exists in mind only as a metaphor for the observed effect of gravity and flight. Yet the effects are real in nature. Two or more minds can agree to create laws and rights among themselves. The laws/rights and particulars of an agreement/contract are real.

I would need first ask what you intend in using the word "real"? I tend to use it, generally, as a synonym for facts ie the factual, the actual; that which is experiential via the common senses (not necessarily synonymous with common sense). I also tend to reserve it for universals, meaning generally applicable to any and all, anywhere. While I would say the specific of "effects" mentioned are real, I would not say the laws/rights and particulars of-- nor the agreement/contract either-- are real. To those 'signing' the papers, there is an essentiallity, but a reality, not so much (the language required being the closest to reality with such). They are but conceptualizations; concepts being invaluable when it comes to the reality of the diversities of "us" in the actual, factual (social/societal) world. [the concepts are real in the perspective that they are neurological, etc]. Granted-- ie to get real, much like with other words, popular usage is another definition choice.

Also, while indeed, I find it acceptable to be said that lift (aerodynamics/thrust/etc) 'supersedes' gravity, it doesn't make gravity any less a perpetual fact of nature, thus a law of nature. Lift itself, a result of aerodynamic law, is based upon the air held in place by gravity.
I'll add too, that I find what I heard someone say recently regarding such laws (ie science): such is more akin to habits. Thus the habits of nature is a good way to think of the likes of gravity and mathematics (and physics). The word law (Law) is regrettably much like the words rights and anarchy. They become akin to being (The) Truth. I like that science maintains an awareness of individual, then human perspective(s), and thus maintains a more "this is how we see it now" approach to nature (and thus, Her habits).

Quote:Three apples exists as a mind concept or reason. Same for five apples. There is only apple, apple, apple, apple, apple, etc.

While I feel I grasp what you're after, I disagree with the point sought. If you'll allow here, I'll use dots for apples: " . . . . . . . " So yes, that is "apple, apple, apple, etc". But factually, it's not:
". . . . . . ." [take away] ". . . ." [leaves] ". . .".
Just in case, of course the math can be expressed by (be represented by) different sounds factually, sound bites, or in our case of communication, different visual representations e.g. 7, 4, 3 versus say VII, IIIV, III. And more significant to point, it matters not whether it's 7,4, and 3 apples, or 3, 4, and 7 oranges (or airplanes).

Also, apple, apple, apple, etc relative to the law of mathematics is factually no different than with the law of gravity's here, here, here, etc. Drop an apple and it's here, then here, then here, etc. It is the habits of the objects that verify the saying it's law-- where law, naturally [sic], is the word for things logically, rationally, and reasoned to be universal, thus (empirically/experientially, thus experimentally) undeniable. (or habitual) 8)

Again, you take anyone, anywhere, and place the "7" apples, then remove ('subtract') "4", and they'll see the fact of the matter of "3" ('sum') --just as universally as they'll see the fact of "lift" (the effect of law) supersede "gravity" (the effect of law).
Thus:

Quote: Gravity exits without reference to mind.

But isn't this missing the essential relative point here? We're not concerned with the existence of gravity any more than we are the existence of apples. Rather, we're interesting in the laws regarding such, no? If the apple doesn't fall, or isn't taken away, who cares whether there's law or not?!?

Quote:Mathematics is a creation of mind. Rights and reason are creations of the mind -- gravity is not. Gravity and mathematics are not the same. They're not both "natural (universal/common) laws.." It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Not. (with the exception of 'rights' being a creation of the mind, agreed)
And if not, I look forward to hearing how not. [I've certainly been con+fused before & had to correct my habits!] :wacky:

So to review my argument:
I take away hand from apple, apple moves from here, to (down) here... anywhere observable by anybody as consistently universally established (thus, according to law of gravity).
I take away apples, apples' sum changes from that to this... anywhere observable by anybody as consistently universally established (thus, according to law of mathematics).
I take away someone's life, they're dead... and only according to who one asks, is whether right to life had anything to do with it?!? (thus, according to whim of social opinion; see 'abortion' for example).


[as far as the physics of pie, make mine apple....... apple.... apple...] :winkwink:

[zonsb]

eye2i2hear Wrote:I'm honing the approach of comparing ...

The contract becomes the law for both parties to a contract. Law in this regard is synonymous with rights. Contract makes the rights/law. I enter into contract and both parties complete giving X consideration as identified in the contract. Thus the law and rights were upheld.