You definition of a right is inadequate -- utterly inadequate -- in my estimation. My rights exist independent of any one else's sanction. My rights are the limits of what I allow of others against myself. That definition is strictly internal. It is my choice. Some of my most preciously held and vigorously defended rights are subject to sanction, as I was taught by William Penn. The sanctioning of my rights by others is irrelevant. I wield my own sanction against those who would violate them.
If you have no inviolable limits, then you are not free. You are a slave, you are a subject, you are chattel. But I am not a slave. I am a free man, although I was not made free by my own virtue. The blood of others, greater than myself, paid the price for my freedom. Nevertheless, I remain free by my own choice. I will not be enslaved, and you violate those rights that I hold dear at a equally dear cost. That is what a right is. It is what I will die defending.
You cannot enslave a free man; the most you can do is kill him. - Robert Heinlein
However, the majority of people, when tested on the "live free or die" question choose "none of the above."
I'm not disagreeing with your position, I'm just stating that it is not the default position of the majority of humanity - and the majority of humanity generally doesn't have a problem with accepting your choice to die rather than yeild.
Again, this is a discussion of what rights practically are, rather than what they ideally are. Read United Federation of Planets on the sidebar for more on this topic. Pack a lunch, it's long.
"- and the majority of humanity generally doesn't have a problem with accepting your choice to die rather than yeild."
Worse than that, they demand it if you get uppity about the whole parasite/host dynamic. Get back to work, millions on welfare depend on you. They are entitled to fruits of your labor and if you don't pay your fair share, they can't get a new flatscreen.
I've read it. I slog through all of your uberposts. I also like Heinlein, but I've grown past him. His sexuality is decrepit.
I find Genesis more compelling. Would you accept the slavery of a 20% income tax in exchange for a full belly? Then accept that your grandchildren will be thrown into the river... That's what it is to be a slave. I'd rather starve in the desert. I accept that as impractical, but choose it if I can find no acceptable alternative. The tradeoff is not practical versus ideal, but practical versus acceptable. I will not accept slavery.
Understand please, that is not a choice I make for my own pride, but for my children. They will be free by my choice. Orphans, if necessary, but free.
By the way, I pay my taxes, but that is because I do not value my paycheck as a right. It can be taken from me, and I will yield it. My rights, though, are not negotiable.
Would you accept the slavery of a 20% income tax in exchange for a full belly?
Are you kidding? When will the income tax ever get THAT low again? And I'm not guaranteed shit.
The tradeoff is not practical versus ideal, but practical versus acceptable. I will not accept slavery.
Uh, I think, given your definition above, that you just announced that you have. Unless I missed something crucial in your two posts.
I'm not being combative here, honestly, but we've had extended heated discussions in the comment threads over what is and what isn't "slavery," and you're straying close to those lines again. BTDT.
Moving past the abstract version of a right, I turned to American Rights. Obviously we have the constitution and the Bill of Rights that clearly defines our rights. However, I would argue that, as it was the government that gave us these 'rights' that they could then take them away at will.
I would say that your former co-worker has taken the first steps, but hasn't made the full transition to citizen yet.
Sentence one - fine.
Sentence two - wrong. The Bill of Rights enumerates SOME rights, and singularly fails to "clearly define" most of them (witness the wriggle room afforded the SC when they so desire). The fact that other rights exist but are not enumerated is even in the document itself - see Amendment 9.
Sentence three - wrong. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing, it recognises pre-exisiting rights,and constrains the government from violating them.
The fact that governments everywhere seem always willing to abridge the rights of the people in no way diminishes the power and purity if the Founding Fathers' writings and achievements. I just wish we had something similar here in Oz.
This may be the saddest thing I've ever read. The poor slave is racking his brain trying to understand freedom. "But what if my massa don't give me rights, how is I 'posed da have rights".
If messages like that don't make it clear that western civilization is dying, I don't know what will. This guy just spelled out the leftist/totalitarian credo in detail. i.e. Indiviual humans have no rights, all rights are derived from group membership to be granted and taken away at their pleasure.
Somebody shoot that poor bastard and put him out of his misery. That's no way for a human to live.
I trust God for my bread, not Pharaoh. I surrender nothing in exchange for security, comfort, health or happiness -- this noisome, impotent lesser god can provide none of these things. He is powerless, like his paper. He is nothing to me.
The whole model of "rights," wherein someone has a claim on someone else, is flawed I suspect. A more internally consistent model would start with obligations of behavior that a person owes. The difference is that I may have an obligation to give 10% to charity, but you may not force me to give that charity to you specifically.
Rights, per se, are theoretically unlimited. I must in theory exert every effort to ensure someone else's rights, regardless of what else is going on. While in the real world we do not do that, this is viewed as the lesser of two evils at best, rather than functioning appropriately in a world of practical constraints. Whereas an obligation, properly phrased, can be fulfilled—and once it is, no one else may expect more that that.
Hypnagogue, you'll notice that the Bible never phrases its law in the language of rights, only obligations for one's own behavior.
(Of course, one might ask, "obligations owed on what basis, and to whom?")
"I am in agreement with Rand on another point - there really is only one, fundamental right: the right to ones own life."
Agreed, which is why I believe the Second Amendment is the most important one. From ownership of self springs the fundamental right of self defense. If you cannot defend your life, either because you are denied the means or punished for doing so, you do not truly own it. And that is what truly makes you a slave.
Mastiff, again you find your self preaching to the preacher, and falsely. The great theme of the Bible is our redemption -- being purchased from slavery into freedom.
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Galatians 5:1
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
1 Corinthians 10:29b
For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?
1 Peter 2:16
Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.
You mistake me. I agree that the Bible is very much concerned with human freedom; indeed, I'm in the very early stages of laying out a book on the Biblical argument for anarchism. However, as I said, the Bible's concern for freedom is not expressed via the language of rights, but of corresponding obligations not to oppress others.
I think the concept of rights is tough to define, but I like where you started "the only right is the right to one's life, with the rest being supportive of that". I feel rights are there regardless of what society things are correct and government restricts. But there is a sphere of rights around each person and my sphere cannot over power another sphere. Ala carrying a gun onto somebody's property if they don't want me to.
It's nice to see other Christians here, but I have to point out that most people here aren't Christians, including our host. Even though we consider the Bible authoritative, they do not. So if you expect to convince them, you will need to use arguments and sources which they respect.
Though the more I think about it, the more it seems that not even the right to life can be supported without the existence of God.
More seriously, what basis for the right to life is there apart from God? If the universe is just lifeless matter, then once no one remembers Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Hitler, what will it matter that they ordered the murder of millions and millions of people? The only question is whether it takes 1,000 years, 10,000 years, or a million. And it's not like any of them could be punished for their crimes. In fact, without a final judgement in the next life, it's reasonable to say that these guys got away with their crimes.
You could say that the right to life is based on enlightened self interest. But if you're the guy at the top who can kill or have people killed at will without repercussions (i.e., no one stronger than you), then self interest doesn't have to be "enlightened".
The problem with linking law and/or "rights" to religious belief is that it makes everyone, believer and non believer alike, subject to the same laws and have the same rights, but only subject to change at the whim of the believers. Such is the way of Sharia law so far as I can tell. The reason it's a problem is because it gives the unbeliever no reason to contract with believers or hold to his contract if he does, since he has nothing to gain by it. He can be held to his end of any contracts but the believers have the power to change the rules.
But "the proposition that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..." works even if you substitute in "random chance" for "Creator". It's simply a statement that all parties are equal under the social contract, that your worst enemy has exactly as much right to change the rules in his favor as you do. Or if you prefer, everyone's right to life is exactly equal to your own, regardless of your wealth, power or anything else.
While I acknowledge that society can promote or retard their practical expression, I've always been skeptical of formulations that flirt with making the existence of my rights somehow contingent on society's view of them...it runs too perilously close to the degenerate majoritarianism proposition of pure democracy that whatever 50%+1 says goes.
I forget: is pure democracy the proposition that 50%+1 gets to define your world for your and tell you what to do, or is it simply that 50%+1 gets to deploy societie's resources to make war against you for failures to comply?
The societal compact has *nothing* to do with rights, and everything to do with the conditions under which a society sanctions making war on its own members.
In some cases, that war is justified, as in defense against current aggression, or retalition against past aggression. In other cases, that war is not justified, with myriad examples to be found, some of which are subject to debate.
--==|==--
It is very hard for most humans to conceptualize themselves as whole and complete moral powers unto themselves, without reference to external source. That's just how people have been conditioned to think, to believe that moral authority comes from above, be it from local, state, national or international government or from the $DEITY in all its glorious forms. It is a reflexive reaction from our childhood.
--==|==--
Having proven the matter to my own satisfaction, I proclaim my own existence.
I find my rights inherent in my own existence, and need no further source of authority or justification.
I have existed in many times, places and societies, each of which had its own take on which of those rights it champions, and which it supresses. Some of these societies have threatened to war with me on the matter.
In all of these cases, it is *I*, and I alone who have decided the terms of capitulation or the terms of war, in an eternal fluid dance of changing circumstance.
--==|==--
Because I do not appeal to on high for my own dignity does not mean that I deny divinity.
I am sufficient.
I,like every other sentient in this universe, bear within the very kernel of my own existence that gift of the Divine Spark, that Image of the $DIETY from which I am made. It is this spark that connect me to divinity and all aspects of the universe, material and ethereal, and as I walk through it all,
I exist,
and my rights are inherent in that existence.
"I've always been skeptical of formulations that flirt with making the existence of my rights somehow contingent on society's view of them...it runs too perilously close to the degenerate majoritarianism proposition of pure democracy that whatever 50%+1 says goes."
Absolutely. That's pretty much the answer I would have given Grumpy.
"I find my rights inherent in my own existence, and need no further source of authority or justification."
It sounds like you're arguing that you and you alone are the foundation for your rights. But what about when someone else doesn't think you have such a right? Especially if they're more powerful than you. You can say they're wrong, but they can say the exact same thing about you. How is such a conflict resolved?
Grumpy, only one religion or atheism can be true; or they could all be false. My fundamental argument is that our concept of rights has to be based in reality, whatever that is.
The Christian God provides a rock solid foundation for rights. I don't think atheism does. And Islam has an arbitrary God that changes his commands at a whim, even contradicting "himself". That's one of the (weaker) reasons why I'm convinced that it cannot be true. Furthermore, Islam has no "right to life" per se for those in "The House of War". (I'm not even sure there's a "right to life" between Muslims.)
If atheism is true and Christianity is not, then we have to deal with the fact that that's reality and deal with the philosophical fallout from that reality in how we look at rights. And to me, the biggest philosophical fallout is the lack of a "source" for rights beyond simple strength in numbers.
If Christianity is true, then that God sets the standards of good behavior and you can either live by them, or violate them. Even if you don't believe in Him, it is still possible to recognize those standards as good and live by them, and His decisions will prevail regardless of your desires or beliefs.
If some other religion is true, then that god sets the standards.
If there is some other unknown god, well, then we're pretty much screwed 'cause we have no idea who he/she/it is or what he wants and we're back to groping in the dark.
Having proven the matter to my own satisfaction, I proclaim my own existence.
I find my rights inherent in my own existence, and need no further source of authority or justification.
Exactly.
But what about when someone else doesn't think you have such a right? Especially if they're more powerful than you. You can say they're wrong, but they can say the exact same thing about you. How is such a conflict resolved?
Exactly.
Grumpy, only one religion or atheism can be true; or they could all be false. My fundamental argument is that our concept of rights has to be based in reality, whatever that is.
Exactly.
And the reality is that if your concept of government is explicitly tied to Christian philosophy, then rightly or wrongly non-Christians will perceive it as "simple strength in numbers" by the followers of "an arbitrary God that changes his commands at a whim, even contradicting himself". Whether it's true or not isn't the point, that's what the public perception will be and therefore that's what it will be treated as, no?
It so happens I like the rules of Christianity. I find them remarkably consistent and reality based as religious doctrines go, as you noted. Christianity hardly ever bites its own tail so far as I can tell. But if you want non-Christians to perceive themselves as 100% equal in the social contract known as "government", you can't begin by tying it to a "ours, not yours" such as religion, any religion. If they don't perceive themselves as equal partners, they won't bother entering the contract in the first place, they won't feel like there's anything in it for them. Non-religious law becomes pointless, you may as well declare a theocracy and be done.
So instead, they basically began with EACH OF US having an equal share in this. You can call it value given by God if you want, or you can say
I find my rights inherent in my own existence, and need no further source of authority or justification.
...whichever, so long yours are no batter and no worse than anyone else's. And the fact that each of us knows in his heart that he and all his close friends will go to Heaven and his enemies will all go the Hell is not allowed to have any bearing on the subject.
"I find my rights inherent in my own existence, and need no further source of authority or justification."
Thus the difference between "I have a right" and "others can, depending on circumstances, affect my exercising said right".
"I exist, and my rights are inherent in that existence."
Hear, hear.
"But what about when someone else doesn't think you have such a right?"
Then there is a conflict in beliefs.
"How is such a conflict resolved?"
By someone changing his mind or by someone dying. If the former, the conflict vanishes; if the latter, the conflict is moot. Usually, such a conflict is simply not resolved.
"And to me, the biggest philosophical fallout is the lack of a "source" for rights beyond simple strength in numbers."
Strength of numbers is a source of power, not of rights, thus it can affect the outcome a conflict about rights, but not the rights themselves.
And with those two cents' worth thrown in, I'm gonna walk on my treadmill for a few miles.
>>You can say they're wrong, but they can say the exact same thing about you. How is such a conflict resolved?
The conflict is resolved by the contestants, using any of a number of means: compromise, war, capitulation, alone or in alliance with others, with or without appeal to some other segment of society, or the majority concensus of propriety.
The outcome may or may not be just, and the parties may or may not be satisfied.
Our belief that truth and justice normally prevails is true in the world only to the extent we actually *make* it true.
I think, however, the question you're really asking is "what is justice, and how can we implement it amongst men?"
In a lot of ways, that's a whole long story of our civilization from the beginning. Some reasonably objective definition of justice can probably be articulated, such that the truth of the matter would be acknowledged by most reasonable and enlightened beings.
A place to start would be to consider the nature of conflict itself. The boundaries of self are where conflict happens, and there are two sources:
The claims we make upon others
and
The claims that are made against us.
Humans are messy, they operate with incomplete information, and not always from reason. They make claims to which they are not entitled, and they often accept claims to which they owe no debt.
It all becomes a great swirly mess in short order.
>>Grumpy, only one religion or atheism can be true;
That's a rather digital approach, isn't it? Does it not also presume that *any* religion thus far articulated has actually hit the nail on the head, and posesses the monopoly on truth by virtue of the arbitrary distinction of happening to be the most accurate description of divinity? ( And what if that religion dissappeared when an unamed tribe in MesoAmerica got nailed with a lava flow, and god really *is* a Tooki-Tooki bird that flew away laughing its ass off? )
My take on the matter is that there is a God, (and it's not a tooki-tooki bird) and that the striving to understand ourselves and our relationship with that God is the hallmark of human endeavor from the very beginning. The fly in the ointment, of course, is that the "God King Gambit", which exploits that deep phenomena for the purpose of earthly gain has pretty thoroughly tainted the history of the collective endeavor.
All articulated religions have their seeds of truth, which reflect the times, places and societies that hold them. All articulated religions have their flaws, which are usually invisible to their holders. No religion will ever contain a complete description of divinity. Every holy book with any significant divine inspiration behind it has been brought down from on high, where truth lives in perfect and complete abstractions to the mud, where a mix of nitrox is vibrated at certain frequencies, in the form of spoken language, and then rendered into symbolic markings and in that process has suffered to some degree or another in the translation.
There is man. There is God. There is a relationship amongst them.
Doing *that* relationship either gives the babblings of the holy books meaning, or renders them obsolete, and sometimes, those are not mutually exclusive options.
Wow... I step away from the blogs for a few days and look what all of you have done. Thanks Kevin, for making my email the subject of a post, had no idea I would have stirred things up the way I did. However, I fear that maybe a few of the commenters may have mistaken the intentions of my questions. As stated, I have shaken off the liberal shackles I once wore proudly. I now find that the deeper I look at things the more complex they are than I ever would have realized. That was the beauty and simplicity of the liberal left... "Don't worry about it, we will take care of it for you... as it is too complicated for you to understand." And that would have been fine had I not met you Kevin (and others) that challenged my intellect to look further down the rabbit hole (no jokes there, please). Once you got me to start thinking for myself verses toting the leftist ideals, I began to ask myself and many others many questions.
The concept of rights is a fascinating one that started as a much simpler question, but quickly spiraled into something far greater than I ever anticipated it would. Initially I was examining the concept of how the American government has created an illusion of freedom. When the country was first formed it was easy to do, as there were so few people. But now, as a country of over 330 million people, that illusion is quickly fading fast. The reason, at least in my belief, is that freedom is only good if you are alone... as are rights. The moment there are two people involved, limitations begin to be imposed upon on another. As you stated in your response, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." If this is the case, then I am not free to swing my fist, but rather I am free to swing my fist anywhere other than your nose. And, the more noses there are, the less free I am to swing my fist. When the country was first founded and our heroic documents of freedom drafted, one could easily swing ones fist about freely as there were so few noses. It made it seem that we could do anything we wanted, so long as it did not impact someone else. Also, I would argue that the Bill of Rights was not drafted to protect your rights, but rather to protect the rights of others from you taking them. In other words, I would say that the right to bare arms is not granting you the right to carry a fire arm, but rather it is granting the of those that would carry a fire arm to to lose that right to you should you disagree. But, as this was stated by the federal government and the federal government has ways of "modifying" the original document, nothing says the federal government can't simply change their mind and change the rules. The only thing standing in their way would be that illusion of freedom and what the American citizen now believes are their rights. As the federal government granted them the right, there should be no expectation of an American citizen that his/her government will not and can not take that right back... as it was never really a right. To many noses....
In contrast, I would say that, as an individual, we are all free to do what ever we want. We have the right to do anything and everything we want to do. The only difference is that our society also has the right to decide whether your claim is just, and thus whether there should be punishment for your actions. Therefore, our personal freedom is only limited by what we feel we are willing to except possible punishment for at the hands of the society we chose to associate with. Feel free to rape, pillage and steel till your heart is content... knowing that society will most likely fry your ass for your actions.
And finally, if we are tethered by the societal constraints of what they are willing to accept... are we really free? To be truly free, we should be able to act as we want at all times with nothing to constrain ourselves other than our own thoughts. If we were all individuals trapped on our own deserted islands, we could run naked all day, piss in the water and fornicated with anything we saw fit with no restraint... as the only person to judge would be ourselves. But play the same scenario out with a video camera broadcasting your actions to millions of viewers, I would be willing to bet ones behavior would quickly be modified to what they think would be acceptable to those watching to some degree... and thus freedom would no longer exist.
>>And finally, if we are tethered by the societal constraints of what they are willing to accept... are we really free?
The bold part answers your own question.
>>To be truly free, we should be able to act as we want at all times with nothing to constrain ourselves other than our own thoughts
Check.
>>If we were all individuals trapped on our own deserted islands,
Exactly the example I came up with.
>>we could run naked all day,
Worth doing! Not that you'd want to look at me doing it, mind you!
>>piss in the water
Stand upstream!
>>and fornicated with anything we saw fit
Ha! LOL!
>> But play the same scenario out with a video camera broadcasting your actions to millions of viewers, I would be willing to bet ones behavior would quickly be modified to what they think would be acceptable to those watching to some degree
What? No exhibitionism streak? ;)
Absent people can't force you to do anything, and their judgemental opinion of you is toothless and irrelevant. Yes, they may be appalled/laughing their butts off about your carnal antics with the pineapples (or whatever), but by rights they should pay you for the entertainment.
Consider why you accept societal constraints. It's rare when people actually perform the cost/benefit analysis of them, and the answers are always surprising. My guess is that most of us can get away with paying a lot less in terms of social compliance, and thus bring the cost/benefit ratio into more attractive proportion.
Ah, and another point: the judgemental opinion of people who are *present* may not be entirely toothless, but my experience suggests that people tend to ascribe more power to them than they actually have.
Anyway, the whole point I'm trying to make is that people need to make more objective analysis of the claims they make against others, the claims made against them, and their responses to them, and the first step is towards that is to first take note of the claims, and next to scrutinize them dispassionately as possible.
Geek... the problem is that most Americans are incapable of objective analysis. Sure, those of us that frequent TSM (Marky-boy excluded) tend to have at least an average understanding of such things (most a higher understanding), but the average shmuck on the street is blindly clueless. They have not just drank they Kool-Aide, but rather they are swimming in it.
Sadly, we are constrained by what others think. The moment a thought comes across your mind and you have the secondary thought of, "If I do that, I will never hear the end of it from ...fill in the blank...", we have self-limited our own freedom. And all on behalf of those that we most likely don't even care about their opinion.
Freedom isn't free unless it is completely unrestrained. Thus, I don't believe there is a sole in this country that is truly free. And thus why I am beginning to feel that documents like the constitution and the bill of rights, while good in concept, are merely placations on behalf of a federal government trying to seduce its own people into thinking they are entitled to something they have already self-limited themselves from. It is the ultimate form of control... a control performed by the citizen themselves upon themselves.
Of course, Natural Rights distill to one right: Life. This was Ayn Rand's focus in Atlas Shrugged. There are logical consequences to the right to one's life. Implicit are the rights to liberty and property (pursuit of happiness).
All of this is a right to strive, to achieve, to be - not to have or be given but to seek and hold once justly obtained. Having and/or the ability to obtain property is not evidence, in and of itself, of unjust action in doing so. Translation: A man's property can not damn him.
Ayn Rand said, "A desire not to be 'something' is a desire not to be."
The reciprocal might be this:
The desire to strive, to achieve, to live is proof that you are alive.
Acting on this is proof you are a human, asserting his rights.
Defending those rights is proof of your assertion of sovereignty. The assertion, defense and maintenance of these rights is the privilege and duty of all who love liberty and know that is as Ronald Reagan said always one generation away from extinction.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/02/rights-again.html (33 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
You definition of a right is inadequate -- utterly inadequate -- in my estimation. My rights exist independent of any one else's sanction. My rights are the limits of what I allow of others against myself. That definition is strictly internal. It is my choice. Some of my most preciously held and vigorously defended rights are subject to sanction, as I was taught by William Penn. The sanctioning of my rights by others is irrelevant. I wield my own sanction against those who would violate them.
If you have no inviolable limits, then you are not free. You are a slave, you are a subject, you are chattel. But I am not a slave. I am a free man, although I was not made free by my own virtue. The blood of others, greater than myself, paid the price for my freedom. Nevertheless, I remain free by my own choice. I will not be enslaved, and you violate those rights that I hold dear at a equally dear cost. That is what a right is. It is what I will die defending.
You cannot enslave a free man; the most you can do is kill him. - Robert Heinlein
However, the majority of people, when tested on the "live free or die" question choose "none of the above."
I'm not disagreeing with your position, I'm just stating that it is not the default position of the majority of humanity - and the majority of humanity generally doesn't have a problem with accepting your choice to die rather than yeild.
Again, this is a discussion of what rights practically are, rather than what they ideally are. Read United Federation of Planets on the sidebar for more on this topic. Pack a lunch, it's long.
"- and the majority of humanity generally doesn't have a problem with accepting your choice to die rather than yeild."
Worse than that, they demand it if you get uppity about the whole parasite/host dynamic. Get back to work, millions on welfare depend on you. They are entitled to fruits of your labor and if you don't pay your fair share, they can't get a new flatscreen.
I've read it. I slog through all of your uberposts. I also like Heinlein, but I've grown past him. His sexuality is decrepit.
I find Genesis more compelling. Would you accept the slavery of a 20% income tax in exchange for a full belly? Then accept that your grandchildren will be thrown into the river... That's what it is to be a slave. I'd rather starve in the desert. I accept that as impractical, but choose it if I can find no acceptable alternative. The tradeoff is not practical versus ideal, but practical versus acceptable. I will not accept slavery.
Understand please, that is not a choice I make for my own pride, but for my children. They will be free by my choice. Orphans, if necessary, but free.
By the way, I pay my taxes, but that is because I do not value my paycheck as a right. It can be taken from me, and I will yield it. My rights, though, are not negotiable.
Would you accept the slavery of a 20% income tax in exchange for a full belly?
Are you kidding? When will the income tax ever get THAT low again? And I'm not guaranteed shit.
The tradeoff is not practical versus ideal, but practical versus acceptable. I will not accept slavery.
Uh, I think, given your definition above, that you just announced that you have. Unless I missed something crucial in your two posts.
I'm not being combative here, honestly, but we've had extended heated discussions in the comment threads over what is and what isn't "slavery," and you're straying close to those lines again. BTDT.
Moving past the abstract version of a right, I turned to American Rights. Obviously we have the constitution and the Bill of Rights that clearly defines our rights. However, I would argue that, as it was the government that gave us these 'rights' that they could then take them away at will.
I would say that your former co-worker has taken the first steps, but hasn't made the full transition to citizen yet.
Sentence one - fine.
Sentence two - wrong. The Bill of Rights enumerates SOME rights, and singularly fails to "clearly define" most of them (witness the wriggle room afforded the SC when they so desire). The fact that other rights exist but are not enumerated is even in the document itself - see Amendment 9.
Sentence three - wrong. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing, it recognises pre-exisiting rights,and constrains the government from violating them.
The fact that governments everywhere seem always willing to abridge the rights of the people in no way diminishes the power and purity if the Founding Fathers' writings and achievements. I just wish we had something similar here in Oz.
This may be the saddest thing I've ever read. The poor slave is racking his brain trying to understand freedom. "But what if my massa don't give me rights, how is I 'posed da have rights".
If messages like that don't make it clear that western civilization is dying, I don't know what will. This guy just spelled out the leftist/totalitarian credo in detail. i.e. Indiviual humans have no rights, all rights are derived from group membership to be granted and taken away at their pleasure.
Somebody shoot that poor bastard and put him out of his misery. That's no way for a human to live.
I trust God for my bread, not Pharaoh. I surrender nothing in exchange for security, comfort, health or happiness -- this noisome, impotent lesser god can provide none of these things. He is powerless, like his paper. He is nothing to me.
The whole model of "rights," wherein someone has a claim on someone else, is flawed I suspect. A more internally consistent model would start with obligations of behavior that a person owes. The difference is that I may have an obligation to give 10% to charity, but you may not force me to give that charity to you specifically.
Rights, per se, are theoretically unlimited. I must in theory exert every effort to ensure someone else's rights, regardless of what else is going on. While in the real world we do not do that, this is viewed as the lesser of two evils at best, rather than functioning appropriately in a world of practical constraints. Whereas an obligation, properly phrased, can be fulfilled—and once it is, no one else may expect more that that.
Hypnagogue, you'll notice that the Bible never phrases its law in the language of rights, only obligations for one's own behavior.
(Of course, one might ask, "obligations owed on what basis, and to whom?")
"I am in agreement with Rand on another point - there really is only one, fundamental right: the right to ones own life."
Agreed, which is why I believe the Second Amendment is the most important one. From ownership of self springs the fundamental right of self defense. If you cannot defend your life, either because you are denied the means or punished for doing so, you do not truly own it. And that is what truly makes you a slave.
Mastiff, again you find your self preaching to the preacher, and falsely. The great theme of the Bible is our redemption -- being purchased from slavery into freedom.
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Galatians 5:1
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
1 Corinthians 10:29b
For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?
1 Peter 2:16
Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.
You mistake me. I agree that the Bible is very much concerned with human freedom; indeed, I'm in the very early stages of laying out a book on the Biblical argument for anarchism. However, as I said, the Bible's concern for freedom is not expressed via the language of rights, but of corresponding obligations not to oppress others.
I think the concept of rights is tough to define, but I like where you started "the only right is the right to one's life, with the rest being supportive of that". I feel rights are there regardless of what society things are correct and government restricts. But there is a sphere of rights around each person and my sphere cannot over power another sphere. Ala carrying a gun onto somebody's property if they don't want me to.
It's nice to see other Christians here, but I have to point out that most people here aren't Christians, including our host. Even though we consider the Bible authoritative, they do not. So if you expect to convince them, you will need to use arguments and sources which they respect.
Though the more I think about it, the more it seems that not even the right to life can be supported without the existence of God.
Ed:
Try me. But remember: I'm armed. :)
Kevin,
I believe in God, therefore I'm a strong believer in the right to life, so it won't be me trying anything. ;)
Oh, and BTW…
I'm armed too. :-D
More seriously, what basis for the right to life is there apart from God? If the universe is just lifeless matter, then once no one remembers Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Hitler, what will it matter that they ordered the murder of millions and millions of people? The only question is whether it takes 1,000 years, 10,000 years, or a million. And it's not like any of them could be punished for their crimes. In fact, without a final judgement in the next life, it's reasonable to say that these guys got away with their crimes.
You could say that the right to life is based on enlightened self interest. But if you're the guy at the top who can kill or have people killed at will without repercussions (i.e., no one stronger than you), then self interest doesn't have to be "enlightened".
The problem with linking law and/or "rights" to religious belief is that it makes everyone, believer and non believer alike, subject to the same laws and have the same rights, but only subject to change at the whim of the believers. Such is the way of Sharia law so far as I can tell. The reason it's a problem is because it gives the unbeliever no reason to contract with believers or hold to his contract if he does, since he has nothing to gain by it. He can be held to his end of any contracts but the believers have the power to change the rules.
But "the proposition that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..." works even if you substitute in "random chance" for "Creator". It's simply a statement that all parties are equal under the social contract, that your worst enemy has exactly as much right to change the rules in his favor as you do. Or if you prefer, everyone's right to life is exactly equal to your own, regardless of your wealth, power or anything else.
While I acknowledge that society can promote or retard their practical expression, I've always been skeptical of formulations that flirt with making the existence of my rights somehow contingent on society's view of them...it runs too perilously close to the degenerate majoritarianism proposition of pure democracy that whatever 50%+1 says goes.
I forget: is pure democracy the proposition that 50%+1 gets to define your world for your and tell you what to do, or is it simply that 50%+1 gets to deploy societie's resources to make war against you for failures to comply?
The societal compact has *nothing* to do with rights, and everything to do with the conditions under which a society sanctions making war on its own members.
In some cases, that war is justified, as in defense against current aggression, or retalition against past aggression. In other cases, that war is not justified, with myriad examples to be found, some of which are subject to debate.
--==|==--
It is very hard for most humans to conceptualize themselves as whole and complete moral powers unto themselves, without reference to external source. That's just how people have been conditioned to think, to believe that moral authority comes from above, be it from local, state, national or international government or from the $DEITY in all its glorious forms. It is a reflexive reaction from our childhood.
--==|==--
Having proven the matter to my own satisfaction, I proclaim my own existence.
I find my rights inherent in my own existence, and need no further source of authority or justification.
I have existed in many times, places and societies, each of which had its own take on which of those rights it champions, and which it supresses. Some of these societies have threatened to war with me on the matter.
In all of these cases, it is *I*, and I alone who have decided the terms of capitulation or the terms of war, in an eternal fluid dance of changing circumstance.
--==|==--
Because I do not appeal to on high for my own dignity does not mean that I deny divinity.
I am sufficient.
I,like every other sentient in this universe, bear within the very kernel of my own existence that gift of the Divine Spark, that Image of the $DIETY from which I am made. It is this spark that connect me to divinity and all aspects of the universe, material and ethereal, and as I walk through it all,
I exist,
and my rights are inherent in that existence.
Geek,
"I've always been skeptical of formulations that flirt with making the existence of my rights somehow contingent on society's view of them...it runs too perilously close to the degenerate majoritarianism proposition of pure democracy that whatever 50%+1 says goes."
Absolutely. That's pretty much the answer I would have given Grumpy.
"I find my rights inherent in my own existence, and need no further source of authority or justification."
It sounds like you're arguing that you and you alone are the foundation for your rights. But what about when someone else doesn't think you have such a right? Especially if they're more powerful than you. You can say they're wrong, but they can say the exact same thing about you. How is such a conflict resolved?
Grumpy, only one religion or atheism can be true; or they could all be false. My fundamental argument is that our concept of rights has to be based in reality, whatever that is.
The Christian God provides a rock solid foundation for rights. I don't think atheism does. And Islam has an arbitrary God that changes his commands at a whim, even contradicting "himself". That's one of the (weaker) reasons why I'm convinced that it cannot be true. Furthermore, Islam has no "right to life" per se for those in "The House of War". (I'm not even sure there's a "right to life" between Muslims.)
If atheism is true and Christianity is not, then we have to deal with the fact that that's reality and deal with the philosophical fallout from that reality in how we look at rights. And to me, the biggest philosophical fallout is the lack of a "source" for rights beyond simple strength in numbers.
If Christianity is true, then that God sets the standards of good behavior and you can either live by them, or violate them. Even if you don't believe in Him, it is still possible to recognize those standards as good and live by them, and His decisions will prevail regardless of your desires or beliefs.
If some other religion is true, then that god sets the standards.
If there is some other unknown god, well, then we're pretty much screwed 'cause we have no idea who he/she/it is or what he wants and we're back to groping in the dark.
Having proven the matter to my own satisfaction, I proclaim my own existence.
I find my rights inherent in my own existence, and need no further source of authority or justification.
Exactly.
But what about when someone else doesn't think you have such a right? Especially if they're more powerful than you. You can say they're wrong, but they can say the exact same thing about you. How is such a conflict resolved?
Exactly.
Grumpy, only one religion or atheism can be true; or they could all be false. My fundamental argument is that our concept of rights has to be based in reality, whatever that is.
Exactly.
And the reality is that if your concept of government is explicitly tied to Christian philosophy, then rightly or wrongly non-Christians will perceive it as "simple strength in numbers" by the followers of "an arbitrary God that changes his commands at a whim, even contradicting himself". Whether it's true or not isn't the point, that's what the public perception will be and therefore that's what it will be treated as, no?
It so happens I like the rules of Christianity. I find them remarkably consistent and reality based as religious doctrines go, as you noted. Christianity hardly ever bites its own tail so far as I can tell. But if you want non-Christians to perceive themselves as 100% equal in the social contract known as "government", you can't begin by tying it to a "ours, not yours" such as religion, any religion. If they don't perceive themselves as equal partners, they won't bother entering the contract in the first place, they won't feel like there's anything in it for them. Non-religious law becomes pointless, you may as well declare a theocracy and be done.
So instead, they basically began with EACH OF US having an equal share in this. You can call it value given by God if you want, or you can say
I find my rights inherent in my own existence, and need no further source of authority or justification.
...whichever, so long yours are no batter and no worse than anyone else's. And the fact that each of us knows in his heart that he and all his close friends will go to Heaven and his enemies will all go the Hell is not allowed to have any bearing on the subject.
O:-)
"I find my rights inherent in my own existence, and need no further source of authority or justification."
Thus the difference between "I have a right" and "others can, depending on circumstances, affect my exercising said right".
"I exist, and my rights are inherent in that existence."
Hear, hear.
"But what about when someone else doesn't think you have such a right?"
Then there is a conflict in beliefs.
"How is such a conflict resolved?"
By someone changing his mind or by someone dying. If the former, the conflict vanishes; if the latter, the conflict is moot. Usually, such a conflict is simply not resolved.
"And to me, the biggest philosophical fallout is the lack of a "source" for rights beyond simple strength in numbers."
Strength of numbers is a source of power, not of rights, thus it can affect the outcome a conflict about rights, but not the rights themselves.
And with those two cents' worth thrown in, I'm gonna walk on my treadmill for a few miles.
>>You can say they're wrong, but they can say the exact same thing about you. How is such a conflict resolved?
The conflict is resolved by the contestants, using any of a number of means: compromise, war, capitulation, alone or in alliance with others, with or without appeal to some other segment of society, or the majority concensus of propriety.
The outcome may or may not be just, and the parties may or may not be satisfied.
Our belief that truth and justice normally prevails is true in the world only to the extent we actually *make* it true.
I think, however, the question you're really asking is "what is justice, and how can we implement it amongst men?"
In a lot of ways, that's a whole long story of our civilization from the beginning. Some reasonably objective definition of justice can probably be articulated, such that the truth of the matter would be acknowledged by most reasonable and enlightened beings.
A place to start would be to consider the nature of conflict itself. The boundaries of self are where conflict happens, and there are two sources:
The claims we make upon others
and
The claims that are made against us.
Humans are messy, they operate with incomplete information, and not always from reason. They make claims to which they are not entitled, and they often accept claims to which they owe no debt.
It all becomes a great swirly mess in short order.
>>Grumpy, only one religion or atheism can be true;
That's a rather digital approach, isn't it? Does it not also presume that *any* religion thus far articulated has actually hit the nail on the head, and posesses the monopoly on truth by virtue of the arbitrary distinction of happening to be the most accurate description of divinity? ( And what if that religion dissappeared when an unamed tribe in MesoAmerica got nailed with a lava flow, and god really *is* a Tooki-Tooki bird that flew away laughing its ass off? )
My take on the matter is that there is a God, (and it's not a tooki-tooki bird) and that the striving to understand ourselves and our relationship with that God is the hallmark of human endeavor from the very beginning. The fly in the ointment, of course, is that the "God King Gambit", which exploits that deep phenomena for the purpose of earthly gain has pretty thoroughly tainted the history of the collective endeavor.
All articulated religions have their seeds of truth, which reflect the times, places and societies that hold them. All articulated religions have their flaws, which are usually invisible to their holders. No religion will ever contain a complete description of divinity. Every holy book with any significant divine inspiration behind it has been brought down from on high, where truth lives in perfect and complete abstractions to the mud, where a mix of nitrox is vibrated at certain frequencies, in the form of spoken language, and then rendered into symbolic markings and in that process has suffered to some degree or another in the translation.
There is man. There is God. There is a relationship amongst them.
Doing *that* relationship either gives the babblings of the holy books meaning, or renders them obsolete, and sometimes, those are not mutually exclusive options.
Wow... I step away from the blogs for a few days and look what all of you have done. Thanks Kevin, for making my email the subject of a post, had no idea I would have stirred things up the way I did. However, I fear that maybe a few of the commenters may have mistaken the intentions of my questions. As stated, I have shaken off the liberal shackles I once wore proudly. I now find that the deeper I look at things the more complex they are than I ever would have realized. That was the beauty and simplicity of the liberal left... "Don't worry about it, we will take care of it for you... as it is too complicated for you to understand." And that would have been fine had I not met you Kevin (and others) that challenged my intellect to look further down the rabbit hole (no jokes there, please). Once you got me to start thinking for myself verses toting the leftist ideals, I began to ask myself and many others many questions.
The concept of rights is a fascinating one that started as a much simpler question, but quickly spiraled into something far greater than I ever anticipated it would. Initially I was examining the concept of how the American government has created an illusion of freedom. When the country was first formed it was easy to do, as there were so few people. But now, as a country of over 330 million people, that illusion is quickly fading fast. The reason, at least in my belief, is that freedom is only good if you are alone... as are rights. The moment there are two people involved, limitations begin to be imposed upon on another. As you stated in your response, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." If this is the case, then I am not free to swing my fist, but rather I am free to swing my fist anywhere other than your nose. And, the more noses there are, the less free I am to swing my fist. When the country was first founded and our heroic documents of freedom drafted, one could easily swing ones fist about freely as there were so few noses. It made it seem that we could do anything we wanted, so long as it did not impact someone else. Also, I would argue that the Bill of Rights was not drafted to protect your rights, but rather to protect the rights of others from you taking them. In other words, I would say that the right to bare arms is not granting you the right to carry a fire arm, but rather it is granting the of those that would carry a fire arm to to lose that right to you should you disagree. But, as this was stated by the federal government and the federal government has ways of "modifying" the original document, nothing says the federal government can't simply change their mind and change the rules. The only thing standing in their way would be that illusion of freedom and what the American citizen now believes are their rights. As the federal government granted them the right, there should be no expectation of an American citizen that his/her government will not and can not take that right back... as it was never really a right. To many noses....
In contrast, I would say that, as an individual, we are all free to do what ever we want. We have the right to do anything and everything we want to do. The only difference is that our society also has the right to decide whether your claim is just, and thus whether there should be punishment for your actions. Therefore, our personal freedom is only limited by what we feel we are willing to except possible punishment for at the hands of the society we chose to associate with. Feel free to rape, pillage and steel till your heart is content... knowing that society will most likely fry your ass for your actions.
And finally, if we are tethered by the societal constraints of what they are willing to accept... are we really free? To be truly free, we should be able to act as we want at all times with nothing to constrain ourselves other than our own thoughts. If we were all individuals trapped on our own deserted islands, we could run naked all day, piss in the water and fornicated with anything we saw fit with no restraint... as the only person to judge would be ourselves. But play the same scenario out with a video camera broadcasting your actions to millions of viewers, I would be willing to bet ones behavior would quickly be modified to what they think would be acceptable to those watching to some degree... and thus freedom would no longer exist.
>>And finally, if we are tethered by the societal constraints of what they are willing to accept... are we really free?
The bold part answers your own question.
>>To be truly free, we should be able to act as we want at all times with nothing to constrain ourselves other than our own thoughts
Check.
>>If we were all individuals trapped on our own deserted islands,
Exactly the example I came up with.
>>we could run naked all day,
Worth doing! Not that you'd want to look at me doing it, mind you!
>>piss in the water
Stand upstream!
>>and fornicated with anything we saw fit
Ha! LOL!
>> But play the same scenario out with a video camera broadcasting your actions to millions of viewers, I would be willing to bet ones behavior would quickly be modified to what they think would be acceptable to those watching to some degree
What? No exhibitionism streak? ;)
Absent people can't force you to do anything, and their judgemental opinion of you is toothless and irrelevant. Yes, they may be appalled/laughing their butts off about your carnal antics with the pineapples (or whatever), but by rights they should pay you for the entertainment.
Consider why you accept societal constraints. It's rare when people actually perform the cost/benefit analysis of them, and the answers are always surprising. My guess is that most of us can get away with paying a lot less in terms of social compliance, and thus bring the cost/benefit ratio into more attractive proportion.
Ah, and another point: the judgemental opinion of people who are *present* may not be entirely toothless, but my experience suggests that people tend to ascribe more power to them than they actually have.
Anyway, the whole point I'm trying to make is that people need to make more objective analysis of the claims they make against others, the claims made against them, and their responses to them, and the first step is towards that is to first take note of the claims, and next to scrutinize them dispassionately as possible.
"Absent people can't force you to do anything, and their judgemental opinion of you is toothless and irrelevant."
Hence Markaphasia.
Geek... the problem is that most Americans are incapable of objective analysis. Sure, those of us that frequent TSM (Marky-boy excluded) tend to have at least an average understanding of such things (most a higher understanding), but the average shmuck on the street is blindly clueless. They have not just drank they Kool-Aide, but rather they are swimming in it.
Sadly, we are constrained by what others think. The moment a thought comes across your mind and you have the secondary thought of, "If I do that, I will never hear the end of it from ...fill in the blank...", we have self-limited our own freedom. And all on behalf of those that we most likely don't even care about their opinion.
Freedom isn't free unless it is completely unrestrained. Thus, I don't believe there is a sole in this country that is truly free. And thus why I am beginning to feel that documents like the constitution and the bill of rights, while good in concept, are merely placations on behalf of a federal government trying to seduce its own people into thinking they are entitled to something they have already self-limited themselves from. It is the ultimate form of control... a control performed by the citizen themselves upon themselves.
Damn, Bill, if you aren't careful you're going to go full-blown Anarcho-Capitalist on us! Whatever you do, don't read Lysander Spooner!
http://www.jonathangullible.com/philosophy-of-liberty
A great, very condensed discussion.
Of course, Natural Rights distill to one right: Life. This was Ayn Rand's focus in Atlas Shrugged. There are logical consequences to the right to one's life. Implicit are the rights to liberty and property (pursuit of happiness).
All of this is a right to strive, to achieve, to be - not to have or be given but to seek and hold once justly obtained. Having and/or the ability to obtain property is not evidence, in and of itself, of unjust action in doing so. Translation: A man's property can not damn him.
Ayn Rand said, "A desire not to be 'something' is a desire not to be."
The reciprocal might be this:
The desire to strive, to achieve, to live is proof that you are alive.
Acting on this is proof you are a human, asserting his rights.
Defending those rights is proof of your assertion of sovereignty.
The assertion, defense and maintenance of these rights is the privilege and duty of all who love liberty and know that is as Ronald Reagan said always one generation away from extinction.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>