Rights and Liberties

If you think a two year old doesn't know without being told that his natural rights are being violated, or that he's violating those of someone else, you've forgotten where you came from.

 

Wrong answer this is about morals not rights. The two are not the same or even interchangeable.

 

In your opinion; especially when science is natural philosophy - you're suggesting logic is not applicable.

 

Not at all.

Actually the post I was responding to was explicitly about the latter.

Be that as it may, they are absolutely inseparable; and anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand either rights or morality.

 

Indeed; for instance, we would all agree that a violation of rights is a violation of morality; these are not the same thing but they are inseparable.

 

It's human nature, bro. Do you support the death penalty?

 

You're either in deep denial, have no grasp of history, or an outright authoritarian, if you believe there are no consequences of ignoring rights of other individuals or your own.

 

What, exactly, have been the consequence of removing the right to life of the innocent citizens wrongfully murdered by the death penalty?

 

Ummm, giving the state power in deciding life and death of it's own citizens is clearly a consequence.
Your little trick question was pathetic. Try harder next time.

 

That's not a consequence, it's the original action. The cause. I'm looking for the effect.

 

I'm not dismissing them, I'm suggesting they're vitally important to the running of a good society. I feel that thinking of rights "just happening" without any thought or effort from us much more dangerous.

On the contrary, I'd suggest history shows it is people who believe in inalienable rights, often from some divine authority, are at least as likely to engage in violent authority.

I'm not ignorant of them, I just disagree. Which is my right.

 

No, think about it and society. What means society.

 

No one is born with rights. Every right we enjoy today stemmed from people fighting the powers that be yesterday, and if the powers that be sense you won't fight for them ever again, they are slowly taken back tomorrow. A perpetual fear of upheaval is the only thing that truly keeps power in check. If there is a limit to what citizenry will do, this limit will be taken advantage of. Americans at this juncture see violence as horribly wrong in all situations internally. The max is screaming and holding signs. And look at how fast every right our founders fought for are deteriorating.

 

I'll wait for you to ask a question worth answering. YOu should have left it at "where do they come from, really?" and maybe I would have played along.

 

Government exist to forestall some freedoms. and some freedoms ought to be curtailed the freedom to murder, rob and rape need to be curtailed. Rights are at best merely freedoms that society finds less objectionable. Morality is composed of duties that society imposes on it members. Morality is placing the well being of others first. An Example I have the right to drive as fast as I want to however as a moral person I do not drive too fast because that would put at risk the lives of others.

 

But surely you can understand that anyone who professes such a belief and proceeds nevertheless to violate the unalienable rights of others is a liar, whereas if one who disavows such rights acts accordingly, only the contemptibly gullible will be surprised. Right?

By that definition, Germans who ratted out Jews to the Gestapo were paragons of morality.

Other humans, maybe; but if a certain class of people becomes an irritant, relief can be had by effectively declaring such people non-human.

 

It's not an opinion. There are certain criteria that must be met in order to apply the scientific method. A hypothesis must be falsifiable, for instance. How do you plan on falsifying a moral or philosophical hypothesis using controlled experimentation? It cannot be done.

 

Nobody is arguing that they "just happen". They are a construct of the human mind, like mathematics and science, and they are derived through our observations of nature and our utilization of reason. By attributing these rights to a nominal entity, e.g., society, you are turning the concept of natural rights into a nebulous farce that has no objective meaning or internal consistency.

It shows nothing of the sort, my good man. What it shows is that collectivist ideologues will always try to usurp the rights of the individual by claiming, wrongly, that individuals derive their rights from an arbitrary and nebulous "collective" or "society". By perpetuating this falsehood, the collectivists are able to intellectually justify the imposition of their subjective value system on unwilling individuals.

Indeed, it is your right, but is it correct? I think not, especially since you do have the authority to misappropriate their ideology towards collectivist ends.

 

Rights do not come from society (completely), individuals, or God. Rights come from POWER. Those that have the power determine what rights are given and what rights are not given.

For instance, if you think you have a "right" to drink beer in the privacy in your own home, you do so only as long as others do not try to stop you. If those in power, in any given society, think beer is evil and they wish to stop you, there is nothing you an do as long as you are significantly weaker than the people that want to stop you. If there is 50 people that want to stop you, but you find 100 people that will support you and help you out, then you have the POWER and make the decisions.

That is why I can not understand those that want to give all the POWER to the Federal Government. Any Government does not care about your individual rights, they only care about the collective's right or the right of those running the Government.

 

I disagree. Rights are subset of morals. I'll give you an example. It is immoral to kill another human being, except in necessary self-defense (or defense of others) because it violates their right to life. It is immoral to steal because it violates the property rights of others. Morals and rights are intertwined. On the other hand, one can hold to morals that have nothing to do with rights. For instance, some hold it immoral to lie though a lie may not violate the rights of anyone (you don't have a right to the truth.) Some hold it immoral to drink alcohol, though consumption of alcohol harms no one. The same for adultery. In fact, in those three things, it would be immoral to prohibit others from lying, drinking, or engaging in adultery because it is their right to dispose of their property and person in whatever manner they choose.

Morals and rights are not all that complex, but they become obfuscated when put in the political context where every person can use what political power he has to enforce his will on others.

 

No. And, I disagree that it's human nature or that "human nature" is an excuse to give in to the rule of others and accept their words, and exertions, as the definition of right and wrong.

 

"Society" is a conceptual label for an aggregate of individuals who share certain common values. It is a word commonly used by collectivists to obfuscate their position and by which they appeal to the bandwagon when attempting to argue the point. In fact, society does not do anything nor does it act or have properties other than in the abstract. Society is also not government.

 

So then, might is right?

 

Not really. More like self preservation cannot have limits. Those in power will naturally have a leg up, and like raptors on Jurassic Park, will constantly test the fence line of the public for weakness to exploit. The majority have no interest in power, at least not to the point it effects their actions. Every gain as far as rights stemmed from those who generally want to be left alone aligning to say "enough is enough" to those with ambitions of power. History is filled with examples. No pleas of right vs wrong ever changed a thing. "Might is right" implies victory must be had to guarantee rights, but this is not the case. The mere act of fighting more often than not brings about concessions. Power has to know there are lines it cannot cross or the masses will die fighting, which basically means an end to commerce until conflict is resolved. Money controls governments, and governments control every inch of the planet. Show those at the top there is no end without concessions, and money will be on the side of resolving the issue so commerce will return. Our founders didn't have to crush Britain for freedom. They simply had to make it not worth staying. The same can be said all the way up to present day Iraq and Afghanistan. The only 2 examples of non-violent change are Gandhi and MLK, and that's what makes them so special. But one is an example of beating foreign occupation, the other changing policy. Neither is an example of non-violent revolution. But in the end, the greatest of leaders have always been those who didn't want to be the leader to begin with. Great change always comes when these types force themselves to act for the greater good. But peace dictates its ok to move on, and the vacuum brings in the wolves. The wolves beget the threat to rights. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

 

If I were you I'd take a listen to some of Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty" at Mises.org (in the Audiobooks section, it's free), because at the beginning of the book he goes over this exact problem. Just take a listen: http://mises.org/media/categories/95/The-Ethics-of-Liberty/2 and look for Chapter 2: Natural Law as 'Science'.

Also, I never said morals can be deduced, I find those too subjective to care much about at the moment. Science is natural philosophy, as I already said - so in a sense, any hypothesis is a philosophical hypothesis, and I point this out because I'm nitpicking now. And you're right, it isn't your opinion - it's your position, but I disagree with it.