Can your "rights" impose on others? [Poll]

[ThrillingHuman]

From wikipedia:

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

I think this definition is good enough. And by it, yes, it makes sense for an entitlement to something to be a right. Like a right to free jello.

But if this is not good enough, let's talk about it a bit further:

If you talk about rights, you naturally have to have them in a society of some sorts.

If you were alone in some forest, the whole talk about rights becomes pointless. Are you going to complain to a hungry tiger that it is robbing you of your "inherent" right to breathe?

In fact, I do not believe there is a thing called "inherent" right.

Here's an experpt from wikipedia which is an unreliable source, yes, but it is good enough for an online forum discussion

While belief in the sanctity of human life has ancient precedents in many religions of the world, the foundations of modern human rights began during the era of renaissance humanism in the early modern period.

So let's forget about inherent rights because they don't exist.

Besides, I am pretty sure there is no actual legal right to breathe but whatever.

But if a right can only exist in a society, even negative rights must require someone to at least acknowledge them (which makes them do something).

If you think acknowledging them is not something that counts as "doing", then let's think about this way:

If a right is acknowledged only by a small group of people relative to the total size of a society, it is not a right. A right has to be at least acknowledged by everyone bar an insignificant minority of people able to break or abide by it and accepted by most of them.

A right will also have to be followed by majority of the people capable of following or not following it, otherwise it will just be an ideal.

In an imagined society where survival is hard, robbing someone vulnerable enough would be far easier and more common than not doing so, and thus there would not be an "inherent" right to, say, "not being robbed". Because following it would require someone to "forgo possible source of survival".

What I am trying to say is a right would have to be a natural outcome for the society's existence and developement.

What does it matter if people doing something for others was a right if for a society it would be a natural expression of its existence then?

Like in the above example, doing something would be more natural than not doing it and forbidding people from doing would be instead an infridgement on their survival. So this talk of negative rights or whatever makes no sense to me.

Rights by their very existence impose on everyone.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, not even rights. Neither morals. So when you use a right you have to take into account the society and circumstances where this right exists, otherwise it will be meaningless.

 

[Lloyd]

You shouldn't rely on the government to do that, as the government is partially the reason for it in the first place.
The other portion is spiritual warfare, arguably our jobs as christians to fight.

Christian's have a duty to take control of the government.

 

[Succubiome]

Nice poem.

In the US obesity affects even the poorest of poor.

We suffer from everyone eating too many geese.

The poem is less powerful when the word geese is replaced with "Current generation iPhone"

Stealing the goose from common vs stealing common from goose is not about food, but rather, the turning of communal property into private property.

The issue in the US is people who own property have a monopoly on the means of production, and, moreover, that laws enforce certain standards that are unrealistic for individuals to shoulder on their own in many many industries and occupations even when they do technically have means of production.

As for eating goose... no, it's mostly eating lower-nutrition foods. Low-quality foods like feed corn and offal are way cheaper to produce to feed the poor, and a big way to make low-quality foods palatable is frying. Corn, in fact, was intentionally made ubiquitously available in the US so that hunger wouldn't be an election issue, but the side effect is obesity, because one has to eat more and unhealthier low-quality food to get enough nutrition.

Adding onto this is that jobs are increasingly sedentary, and because people don't own the means of production, they must sell their work to others if they wish to live, and, hey, look at that, most jobs don't require physical labor because those who own the factories outsourced that to other countries.

In short, these are all consequences of the privatization and centralization in few hands of property rights.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

"Rights" is not something I typically think about. I am generally more focused on what people should or should not be doing.

Morals. The actually important stuff.

Rights are legal definitions, as posted above. Laws and rights are all based on morals of a society.

Everything flows down from beliefs. Religion, some might say. Religion is what dictates morals, laws, and government.

Christian's have a duty to take control of the government.

A duty? Where is that command given to us?

 

[Tyranomaster]

If you talk about rights, you naturally have to have them in a society of some sorts.

If you were alone in some forest, the whole talk about rights becomes pointless. Are you going to complain to a hungry tiger that it is robbing you of your "inherent" right to breathe?

Like in the above example, doing something would be more natural than not doing it and forbidding people from doing would be instead an infridgement on their survival?

The alone in the forest argument is a simplification of the more nuanced argument to form a heuristic to determine a right.

The more in depth determination comes from the idea of the Logos, and allthat entails. Abilities that I as an individual can exert in the world and manifest some change.

I can talk to other humans, and convince them of my beliefs.

I can use force on other humans or nature and bend it to my will, just as other humans can do unto me (so act wisely, or live a short life).

I can believe what I want to believe.

I can perform actions that are within my power to perform.

I am a sovereign soul, with the ability to self determination.

Should others attsmpt to change my path, I can agree, but they can never force me.

 

[Aaqil]

How do you report a thread?

I think you need to report the first/original message,

 

[Lloyd]

"Rights" is not something I typically think about. I am generally more focused on what people should or should not be doing.

Morals. The actually important stuff.

Rights are legal definitions, as posted above. Laws and rights are all based on morals of a society.

Everything flows down from beliefs. Religion, some might say. Religion is what dictates laws and government.


A duty? Where is that command given to us?

Yes. Matthew 28:19

 

[AnonUnlimited]

I wish I didn’t have to work today, otherwise I’d be posting in this thread too.

The intent of the thread was whether rights can impose on others, what I’m getting is that in the context of society the answer seems to be yea, but the line drawn of how far a right can go is a gray area.

Another example, we can say property is a right, but in actuality one has to have the ability to defend it too, otherwise ownership rights are taken away by thieves.

 

[Rhaps]

As a sociopath, I know to respect the rights of other, as well as the law. Thats why I always try to find loopholes to get away with things

 

[Aaqil]

@AliceShiki help me.

*pat pat*

 

[ThrillingHuman]

The alone in the forest argument is a simplification of the more nuanced argument to form a heuristic to determine a right.

The more in depth determination comes from the idea of the Logos, and allthat entails. Abilities that I as an individual can exert in the world and manifest some change.

I can talk to other humans, and convince them of my beliefs.

I can use force on other humans or nature and bend it to my will, just as other humans can do unto me (so act wisely, or live a short life).

I can believe what I want to believe.

I can perform actions that are within my power to perform.

I am a sovereign soul, with the ability to self determination.

Should others attsmpt to change my path, I can agree, but they can never force me.

I didn't form a heuristic to determine a right, I started off with a definition of what a right is.

If by Logos you mean the Logos the stoicists refered to, which is the only one I know, then afaik it is not about you being able to do anything but instead and on the contrary, it is about you only being what you are and accepting your circumstances.

Admittedly, I did not bother with studying this stoicism nonsense so maybe I am wrong, I only remember Marcus Aurelius ranting about stupid people in his diary and saying "they only are because they can only be the way they are"

But I do know that others can very well force you to physically change your path. A hungry tiger in a forest will force you to end your path, physically and metaphysically. As for forcefully changing your opinion - putting sci-fi aside - does it even matter?

Rights have to be practical otherwise they mean nothing.

 

[Tyranomaster]

Stealing the goose from common vs stealing common from goose is not about food, but rather, the turning of communal property into private property.

The issue in the US is people who own property have a monopoly on the means of production, and, moreover, that laws enforce certain standards that are unrealistic for individuals to shoulder on their own in many many industries and occupations even when they do technically have means of production.

As for eating goose... no, it's mostly eating lower-nutrition foods. Low-quality foods like feed corn and offal are way cheaper to produce to feed the poor, and a big way to make low-quality foods palatable is frying. Corn, in fact, was intentionally made ubiquitously available in the US so that hunger wouldn't be an election issue, but the side effect is obesity, because one has to eat more and unhealthier low-quality food to get enough nutrition.

Adding onto this is that jobs are increasingly sedentary, and because people don't own the means of production, they must sell their work to others if they wish to live, and, hey, look at that, most jobs don't require physical labor because those who own the factories outsourced that to other countries.

In short, these are all consequences of the privatization and centralization in few hands of property rights.

Stealing the Goose from the common was written in the 1600s. A time before the US and when individuals didn't have property rights, only lords did.

Furthermore. In a country with property rights, the issues the poem brings up were solved. Food is no longer a scarcity.

To argue low quality food is now the issue is to neglect the spirit of the poem. These people ate unclean geese and wheat. Not a diverse or healthy diet, a peasants diet. They were malnourished and starving. They literally were were starving through winters and losing children.

 

[phaeous]

I wish I didn’t have to work today, otherwise I’d be posting in this thread too.

The intent of the thread was whether rights can impose on others, what I’m getting is that in the context of society the answer seems to be yea, but the line drawn of how far a right can go is a gray area.

Another example, we can say property is a right, but in actuality one has to have the ability to defend it too, otherwise ownership rights are taken away by thieves.

You can't "take them away" in the sense of 'invalidating their moral necessity'.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

Yes. Matthew 28:19

Ah, you see this verse isn't talking about controlling governments, but of teaching people the right way.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

You can't "take them away" in the sense of 'invalidating their moral necessity'.

So you define rights as something “moral”? Would t that make rights subjective then?

 

[ThrillingHuman]

you can never force someone to work for you, so labeling anything that requires someone else's labor as a "right" is just marxist word play to try to convince midwits that they're being mistreated by the bourgeois.

tell that to children working in sweatshops
"But you can not work guys!"

This kind of rhetoric is used by liberals to convince dimwits they are not being exploited by capitalists

 

[Tyranomaster]

I didn't form a heuristic to determine a right, I started off with a definition of what a right is.

If by Logos you mean the Logos the stoicists refered to, which is the only one I know, then afaik it is not about you being able to do anything but instead and on the contrary, it is about you only being what you are and accepting your circumstances.

Admittedly, I did not bother with studying this stoicism nonsense so maybe I am wrong, I only remember Marcus Aurelius ranting about stupid people in his diary and saying "they only are because they can only be the way they are"

But I do know that others can very well force you to physically change your path. A hungry tiger in a forest will force you to end your path, physically and metaphysically. As for forcefully changing your opinion - putting sci-fi aside - does it even matter?

Rights have to be practical otherwise they mean nothing.

In a general Christian sense, it roughly means the divine spark in each individual. Their soul. Their will. Whatever you want to call it.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

In a general Christian sense, it roughly means the divine spark in each individual. Their soul. Their will. Whatever you want to call it.

Then I use my divine spark or whatever you call it to exercise my nebulous right to not believe in Christ etc. and not care about other people's sparks. So what?

 

[Tyranomaster]

tell that to children working in sweatshops
"But you can not work guys!"

If they all didn't, the government would have to kill them. Then there is a general revolt, and the government. Self sacrifice is a core tenant to preventing tyrany.

Their parents are actually the ones who should fight to prevent their labor.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

If they all didn't, the government would have to kill them. Then there is a general revolt, and the government. Self sacrifice is a core tenant to preventing tyrany.

Their parents are actually the ones who should fight to prevent their labor.

But they are being forced to work when they "can't be forced to work"