What is a right?

darkcgi said:
no its the only thing we really know
everything else is individual choices
we can choose as a group for a whole but they are still forced to make the choice
Click to expand...
I'm not certain I follow you, but it's late. What I'm aiming for is that most basic definition of a fundamental right that we can agree on - a description that we can use to measure whether this or that example is a right or something else.
 
Accountable said:
I believe owning property is the same type of right as the right to bear arms. No one has the right to property, but they do have the right to purchase it and keep it once purchased. That's my take. Eminent domain is a concept whose time is past.
Click to expand...

and yet how did eminent domain come into being? who said the government can dish out property for purchase?

then again, who said the government could have power? (the people, i know).

but who gave the people the power to assign power?

if (suppose with me here; i'm not saying this is true) religion (a likely source of the people's power) was invented by the people...

see where i am going here?

we don't have power, neither does the government. we have deluded ourselves into thinking we own that which gave us life and continues (in a decreasing quantity) to give us sustenance (this planet).. yet where did this notion of power evolve from?

---------

let's play with the intelligent design side, shall we?

say we were designed.

but by who? who gave them/that entity that power to give us (the people) power to give the governments power?

chase the who giving who power, and you (may) realize that if intelligent design is reality, than there is no end, as such power must be delegated, not derived from existence.

-----

even evolution does not describe this debate of power.

therefore, if we cannot resolve the origin of power, we cannot derive a fundamental definition of a right, because to declare a fundamental right, you must have the power to do so. if we don't know the origin of power, than we cannot in our current society have fundamental rights.
 
I think you're making a leap that's not necessary. If a person has a gun to your head, he has the power of life & death over you. It doesn't matter who loaded the gun, manufactured the bullet, or gave birth to the person. He's got the power now, and can decide what to do with it.
 
Accountable said:
I think you're making a leap that's not necessary. If a person has a gun to your head, he has the power of life & death over you. It doesn't matter who loaded the gun, manufactured the bullet, or gave birth to the person. He's got the power now, and can decide what to do with it.
Click to expand...

we are not discussing conditions involving enforcement.

we are discussing what should be the grounds for the foundation of fundamental rights.

two differing issues together.
 
The purpose of this thread is an attempt to prove that health care is not a right, therefore a public option paid for by taxpayers is not legitimate. But rights are all in the eyes of the beholder(s) so really they are subject to majority opinion. There was a time when you were of a certain color, you did not have the right to enter a place of business, sit down and order a meal. That has changed for the better. What I really like is the the term "natural rights", that's a hoot. :)
 
Minor Axis said:
The purpose of this thread is an attempt to prove that health care is not a right, therefore a public option paid for by taxpayers is not legitimate. But rights are all in the eyes of the beholder(s) so really they are subject to majority opinion. There was a time when you were of a certain color, you did not have the right to enter a place of business, sit down and order a meal. That has changed for the better. What I really like is the the term "natural rights", that's a hoot. :)
Click to expand...
And you have the right to hold that view, without imposing on anyone else to provide, maintain, or share it ... no matter what the majority thinks or what is in the beholder's eye(s). :)
 
ssl said:
and yet how did eminent domain come into being? who said the government can dish out property for purchase?

then again, who said the government could have power? (the people, i know).

but who gave the people the power to assign power?

if (suppose with me here; i'm not saying this is true) religion (a likely source of the people's power) was invented by the people...

see where i am going here?

we don't have power, neither does the government. we have deluded ourselves into thinking we own that which gave us life and continues (in a decreasing quantity) to give us sustenance (this planet).. yet where did this notion of power evolve from?
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing power with authority.

We the people give the gov't authority to do certain things but power can be exercised without legitimate authority, that is how dictatorships operate after all.

The power of gov't comes at the tip of the spear. In modern nation states, the gov't has a monopoly of force which it can and does use to force people to comply with its edicts. That is, if you continually defy the edicts and proclamations of your gov't, the ultimate end result is that they will send men with guns to your house and kill you.

Don't believe me, try not paying your income tax for a few years and then when the IRS agents show up to seize your house, fight back and see what happens ;)

Minor Axis said:
The purpose of this thread is an attempt to prove that health care is not a right, therefore a public option paid for by taxpayers is not legitimate. But rights are all in the eyes of the beholder(s) so really they are subject to majority opinion. There was a time when you were of a certain color, you did not have the right to enter a place of business, sit down and order a meal. That has changed for the better. What I really like is the the term "natural rights", that's a hoot. :)
Click to expand...

And at that time, the majority was wrong based on the theory of rights I outlined earlier combined with the principle of equality under the law. Operating a public conveyance such as a business obligates you respect the liberty rights of others within certain bounds. If you were to make it a private club, then you could still to this day, exclude whomever you wanted...
 
nova said:
I think you're confusing power with authority.

We the people give the gov't authority to do certain things but power can be exercised without legitimate authority, that is how dictatorships operate after all.

The power of gov't comes at the tip of the spear. In modern nation states, the gov't has a monopoly of force which it can and does use to force people to comply with its edicts. That is, if you continually defy the edicts and proclamations of your gov't, the ultimate end result is that they will send men with guns to your house and kill you.

Don't believe me, try not paying your income tax for a few years and then when the IRS agents show up to seize your house, fight back and see what happens ;)
Click to expand...

Confusion is an excelling tool to gain power/authority/whatever. We could argue root stems, etmologies, evolution of ideals of what powers and authority are, but that does not yield the information necessary to answer my question: who gave the people the authority||power to give a government authority||power?

(See how the sentence is unaffected by either word??)

The fact still remains that no one has the authority to grant authority, no matter what one little letter of grievances states. No one has the power to exert power over another.

People just delude themselves into thinking that they have the authority||power to do such and such.

Enough base-covering for you?

====

Just read the bolded part of your statement.

So, you are fine with granting a group of people the ability to use fear to get what they want, even if it is at the cost of the lives of people who granted such authority||power in the first place?

Sounds a little fucked up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Accountable said:
I think you're making a leap that's not necessary. If a person has a gun to your head, he has the power of life & death over you. It doesn't matter who loaded the gun, manufactured the bullet, or gave birth to the person. He's got the power now, and can decide what to do with it.
Click to expand...

ssl said:
we are not discussing conditions involving enforcement.

we are discussing what should be the grounds for the foundation of fundamental rights.

two differing issues together.
Click to expand...

Accountable said:
Which begs the question why you brought it up.
Click to expand...

So, in order for you to get back onto the subject of power... who's got what given to them by who to grant fundamental rights... requires?

Who took up guns and fought the war that made the founding fathers think they could start a country?

The people.

Who gave the people the power to take up guns to give the founding fathers the ability to think they could start a nation?

Probably people with agendas, but people nonetheless, and I could not care less about the agendas at this point; they are still people.

But who gave those people the ability to rally the masses enough to incite the necessary morale to pick up the guns to give the founding fathers the ability to think they could start a nation?

See where I am going with this?

You have to backtrack the series of events to find the source. There is a problem, however. There IS NO SOURCE.

So, my question remains: Who gave the power to the people to make them think they have the power to enact change on their living conditions?

Do you understand the point I am trying to make here?

It's all about our origins, but some may find my logical reasoning to be a difficult path to follow (and some may, with the ability to do so, say that I have no bearing on navigation) but when it comes down to it, where in the records of existence propelled us to the level we can decide that we have the ability to kill one another because they believe on thing, and we believe a converse, to which (supposedly) there is no resolution?

Oh, wait, we were talking about fundamental rights. Sorry, must have gotten lost at the American Revolution.
 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "

We decided for ourselves that these rights exist, regardless of a belief in a creator. I'm just trying to nail down a decent definition we can all live with, forthe time that someone starts mistaking a privilege or an entitlement for a right.
 
ssl said:
Just read the bolded part of your statement.

So, you are fine with granting a group of people the ability to use fear to get what they want, even if it is at the cost of the lives of people who granted such authority||power in the first place?

Sounds a little fucked up.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by being "ok" with it. It is what it is by virtue of the fact that we live within society. :dunno:

Again assuming the desert island, all alone, a person holds all the power and authority over themselves.

In a society "we the people" delegate some of that power and authority to the gov't in order to preserve as much liberty for individuals as possible while protecting the rights of life, liberty and property for other individuals (not an easy balancing act no matter who you are).

Assume for a second that "we the people" do not choose to delegate that power and authority, that power and authority basically stay with the individual and and we're back to depending upon our neighbors good graces and/or being bigger and meaner than our neighbor to preserve both rights and liberties.

All of these ideas are predicated on starting with one single individual and how the concepts apply to that individual and then moving outwards from there so that multiple individuals can exist together...
 
sbelle said:
'What is a right?'

It's whatever the government you live under allows you to do.
Click to expand...

Rights are certain things you can do IN SPITE of what your government allows you to do, and in part, they guide what the government allows. I like to think that government permissions are not permanently linked with our civil rights, in fact they don't always mesh. I'm a believer of the "my body, my rules" school of thought, yet there are governments out there that would just as soon take control over my body and what I do with it. In fact, all governments do this to an extent. Mandatory seatbelts, for instance. Yes, I see why they are beneficial, but NO I don't think any adult who is making an informed decision to not wear one should be forced to do so. Ditto for reproductive freedoms. The government may very well decide to infringe their morals and values onto the masses, but I will STILL view it as MY RIGHT to make my own reproductive choices.
 
nova said:
Aye to the above two posters. Rights may be oppressed and repressed by the illegitimate use of gov't power, but they still exist even so...
Click to expand...
Great point. Let's add that to the list.

  • a right should not obligate another person to action.
  • a right of inaction is superior to another's right of action.
  • a right exists whether the government acknowledges it or not.
Though a government can take away or prohibit rights on individual people (through imprisonment, lobotomization, execution, etc) it can't do so at a societal level. If it can, then I don't think it can be considered a right.
 
Rights do not exist. Before you get all bunched up, and have a fit, it's not some sort of crazed fascist tag-line. All the things we have are privileges paid for by the the blood and sweat of those who preceded us. It is up to us to fight to retain those liberties which were paid for by our ancestors. When an individual stops recognizing this and begins to expect something for nothing, or determines that they have an "inalienable right" to something, it is then that both liberty and democracy are in great jeopardy. ;)
 
Accountable said:
Though a government can take away or prohibit rights on individual people (through imprisonment, lobotomization, execution, etc) it can't do so at a societal level. If it can, then I don't think it can be considered a right.
Click to expand...

I'd also like to add that the individual infringement can only be legitimate in response to the individual infringing on another individuals rights ie a violation of the requirement of inaction...
 
Back
Top