What is a right?

[ssl]

"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.

Surely you did not decide these things. The founding fathers did, and if you live now, I doubt you are of such an age to have been present at the time said document was written. So, therefore, you do not hold those truths to be self-evident, you hold those truths to be so because you were taught so.

As to the belief of a creator or not, I think it plainly states there is one, as evidenced by capital letter c.

Iin my honest opinion, no one has a right to anything.

Everyday you wake up, you have the opportunity to live. To think that the ability to live is a right is just absurd, given the non-political aspects of the potential for the end of one's life. If you go out and drive to a location, it is not a right that you should arrive or even return. It is a privilege you should be grateful for, not one that needs to be embodied by pride ("I have the RIGHT to live.").

 

[nova]

Everyday you wake up, you have the opportunity to live. To think that the ability to live is a right is just absurd, given the non-political aspects of the potential for the end of one's life. If you go out and drive to a location, it is not a right that you should arrive or even return. It is a privilege you should be grateful for, not one that needs to be embodied by pride ("I have the RIGHT to live.").

So since its a privelage subject to revocation at any time, you should have no problems with me putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger? Sorry I don't buy that.

To be clear, we're not talking about accidents and happenstance here. We're talking about deliberate actions of other human beings and restrictions thereof. Only human beings can have rights and only human beings can infringe on rights.

If you or I am walking through the forest one sunny day, and a tree limb falls caving our skull in, well life sucks, shit happens, there's nothing right or wrong about what happened. If you or I am walking through the forest and a bandit pops out and puts a bullet in our head, that is clearly an illegitimate use of force, quite honestly wrong on a scale of "right to wrong" and infringement upon our right to life.

My right to life is not some arrogant statement to the effect of "you have to support me with food/clothing/shelter" but a statement to the effect of "you have no legitimate power to deliberately kill me."

 

[ssl]

So since its a privelage subject to revocation at any time, you should have no problems with me putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger? Sorry I don't buy that.

To be clear, we're not talking about accidents and happenstance here. We're talking about deliberate actions of other human beings and restrictions thereof. Only human beings can have rights and only human beings can infringe on rights.

If you or I am walking through the forest one sunny day, and a tree limb falls caving our skull in, well life sucks, shit happens, there's nothing right or wrong about what happened. If you or I am walking through the forest and a bandit pops out and puts a bullet in our head, that is clearly an illegitimate use of force, quite honestly wrong on a scale of "right to wrong" and infringement upon our right to life.

My right to life is not some arrogant statement to the effect of "you have to support me with food/clothing/shelter" but a statement to the effect of "you have no legitimate power to deliberately kill me."

Bold #1: Yes.

Bold #2: So you are limiting rights to ... humans only? Why? Because we are "intelligent"?

Bold #3: If we are not trespassing (which we are at any given time at any location) then you may have a small chance of winning a debate on this.

Bold #4: And if you realize that if we did not have the concept or implementation of force, no one would need to worry about rights. Now, since we are considered in an "intelligent" state of existence, please remind me why we need force?

 

[nova]

Bold #1: Yes.

Bold #2: So you are limiting rights to ... humans only? Why? Because we are "intelligent"?

Bold #3: If we are not trespassing (which we are at any given time at any location) then you may have a small chance of winning a debate on this.

Bold #4: And if you realize that if we did not have the concept or implementation of force, no one would need to worry about rights. Now, since we are considered in an "intelligent" state of existence, please remind me why we need force?

1. I'm confused as to whether you would or would not have a problem with that...

2. Not due to intelligence, there are plenty of intelligent creatures. Because we have enough intelligence to think and reason logically and with purpose.

3. Why exactly are you mentioning trespassing? For simplicity sake, assume no property ownership and property rights issues...

4. Within society, implementation of force is a reality, not a concept. All we're talking about is a framework to deal with that reality such that we can live together. This requires definitions that say who is allowed to use force and under what circumstances. For an individual the only legitimate use of force is self defense, otherwise the state has a monopoly of force that is only legitimately used under limited circumstances.