Do rights exist?

[Aetherous]

This thread is for the discussion of whether rights (such as human rights, or what's referred to in the US Bill of Rights) exist or not.

 

Copied and pasted below is a response I previously made on this subject (in which I assert that they do exist):

 

...

 

Quote

 

You're essentially saying "might makes right", which is untrue. "Might" just makes people capable of doing things...it doesn't make the things they do right. An imaginary example of this could be a genocide, after which the international community takes out that genocidal government. The bad guys thought they had the right, because they were able to do it, and they thought those citizens had no rights because they couldn't stop it, and so the bad guys were able to take advantage of the innocent citizens. BUT - it turns out  that other countries thought the bad guys violated the rights of all of those citizens, and so they took action against the baddies...and now the formerly-mighty is no longer capable of doing anything. So: might does not make right in any way. It just makes people able to do things to others.

 

Rights always require force to be maintained, such as law enforcement, courts, governments, international organizations, etc. We can even use self defense to maintain our rights, if it's within the law.

 

Our Bill of Rights is something constantly argued about. Do US citizens have the right to own firearms? Some would argue no. Those who support and defend the Constitution say yes.

 

Do we have that right just because a piece of paper says it's true? If so, then the former group of "liberals" is correct, and Americans don't have the right to bear arms...they just have a flimsy piece of paper saying they do, which will soon be gone. But in reality, such rights are constructed upon something very solid: human nature. It has to be enforced continually against those opposed to human rights.

 

About "agreement" being necessary... Criminals can disagree that you have rights, and do all sorts of things...but because the society you're in agrees there are rights, the criminals are for the most part SOL. They will get in trouble for thinking you don't have rights, when they act upon that belief and violate your rights. This is just to say: some might not be in agreement, but the fact that others are in agreement shows that rights do exist, regardless of that disagreement.

 

On a larger scale: certain governments can disagree that people have rights, but other governments and perhaps international orgs will say those people do have rights. Or even puny lawmakers and lawyers will say that, and they can win. So, just like with the criminal: because others agree on the subject, the one that disagrees is SOL.

 

"If there is no agreement"...so long as there's one person on earth who agrees, even if they're dead and the idea is just in writing, even if it's just your sole opinion and you are the person who agrees with yourself, human rights exist. In our current era, they absolutely exist in so many fashions.

 

"...And one does not have the force" as demonstrated above, might does not make right. You don't need to win against criminals in order for your rights to exist...for instance, you don't suddenly have the right to private property if you catch a thief in the act and have nothing of yours stolen. You'd have that right even if they stole your stuff...the right sometimes doesn't protect you from things happening to you (sometimes doesn't go on the offense for you, such as preventing theft), but it does defend you (your property still belongs to you after police find it in the thief's possession). So you have rights...if you lose against the thief and they steal you stuff, they didn't steal your right to private property. They just stole your property, and violated your right.

 

Another example: if someone lies so that you get thrown in prison, it can't be said, "they took away his right to liberty". No...they took away your liberty, and in doing so unjustly violated your rights...but they didn't take away your right to liberty.

 

Taken from:

 

 

 

Feel free to discuss!

[silent thunder]

What a great question. 

It's one I consider to be an open question, as it has never had one firm answer for me and may never have...

 

I was simultaneously surprised and not surprised when years ago I followed the urge to explore this and reasearched some of the various 'inalienable rights' of various cultures.   The comparisons are vastly ranging.  Surprising and yet, not surprising at all.

 

It's up there with 'what is normal?' for me in open questions.

[joeblast]

6 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

What a great question. 

It's one I consider to be an open question, as it has never had one firm answer for me and may never have...

 

I was simultaneously surprised and not surprised when years ago I followed the urge to explore this and reasearched some of the various 'inalienable rights' of various cultures.   The comparisons are vastly ranging.  Surprising and yet, not surprising at all.

 

It's up there with 'what is normal?' for me in open questions.

here's another one where going back to black's law dictionaries provides some important nuance

 

inalienable can still be bought, sold, or transferred

 

unalienable is immutable and cannot be

 

its useful for certain entities, being able to buy, sell and transfer certain....things

[silent thunder]

I'd say inalienable is the perfect term, given how variable those rights are within the various strata of society, how they shift over the decades and how often andin what circumstances they are enforced, upheld, ignored and altered by those with 'influence within the oligarchy/system'.

[joeblast]

2 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

I'd say inalienable is the perfect term, given how variable those rights are within the various strata of society, how they shift over the decades and how often andin what circumstances they are enforced, upheld, ignored and altered by those with 'influence within the oligarchy/system'.

yeah, but in a certain document, saying something like the creator endowed us with certain ___ rights...that matters

 

the original word was unalienable, regarding the bill of rights

 

it didnt say that after 1871 or so...

[rideforever]

There are natural laws, for instance that you exist and have the right to be exist, an eye for an eye, nothing is for free.   These reflect reality as it it.   This is the most important thing.   One important law is that the soil of the society should not be disturbed, and if you personally wish to do something zanny then by all means do it, privately.   Do damage the soil (the common people) is to undo society.

 

Human societies collectively make rules for themselves.  They can do what they like by mutual consent.   However often many people do not consent; many people do not know the rules (how many people know all the laws?  None); and if you are born into a society, do you consent to the laws, or the debt of a society?

 

Then there is a question of the need for the family; as human babies are unable to be self-reliant.   The family is necessary for the health of young members of our society.   In this way we can prioritise the needs of health.

 

In fact my observation that no matter what the laws are, what is actually done is the natural laws that everyone understands in their guts.  In other words we have an instinctive conscience that overrules any BS the human mind has dreamed up.

 

Often Laws are made by rich people in order to safeguard their ill gotten gains.   Sometimes they are made in order to safe guard their correctly gotten gains.

 

Some laws protect individual liberty, protecting a conscious individual person.   

Other laws protect the anthill.

The current endless discussion about rights represents a degeneration of human beings in the West.

"Rights", "Equality", "Respect", "Tolerance" are actually meaningless buzzwords coming from a plastic, materialistic, malnourished, and unintelligent culture, that is in the process of being enthusiastically destroyed.

 

Humans are in a tragic state of consciousness for whatever reason, which includes large amounts of negativity and insincerity, and a mixture of levels of consciousness.  

 

So the most important thing to know is the natural laws which are straightforward.

 

The laws that exist in the West descend from a culture where people were in a healthier condition.  Today people strutt like peacocks in brightly coloured clothes, porting brightly coloured ideas in their heads ... they are unreal ungrounded and their lives revolve around activities that are not very healthy.   Working hard all day long, was very good for the soul.  The PR revolution, of twisting ideas into people's heads has severally damaged people.

Edited May 1, 2019 by rideforever

[silent thunder]

I find I can break the laws of man all day long day in and out... and I may or may not get caught, and even then, I may or may not be prosecuted, and even then, I may or may not be penalized.

 

I cannot however break the laws of nature, on those, it's me that breaks.

[windwalker]

I tend to agree with the clip posted. 

I would also say that nature has no laws....

There are observations that some may feel are laws but do not necessarily 

follow that what is observed is unchanging or based on some type of rule....

 

On can not break a natural law that are none, one can go against or use what is observed and be subject

to the consequences of doing so.    Whether its beneficial or not  what is called  "nature"   has no stake in it....

 

 

[Pilgrim]

2 hours ago, joeblast said:

here's another one where going back to black's law dictionaries provides some important nuance

 

inalienable can still be bought, sold, or transferred

 

unalienable is immutable and cannot be

 

its useful for certain entities, being able to buy, sell and transfer certain....things

I think you might have this one wrong as they mean the same thing. 

 

Unalienable https://thelawdictionary.org/unalienable/

 

What is UNALIENABLE?

Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

 

 

Inalienable https://thelawdictionary.org/inalienable/

 

What is INALIENABLE?

Not subject to alienation ; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty.

 

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/unalienable.html

 

nalienable / Inalienable

Dunlap Broadside


Jefferson's handwriting


Parchment copy

The question is often asked, "Is the word in the Declaration of Independence unalienable or is it inalienable?"

The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." Some earlier drafts used the word "inalienable," which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Pilgrim

[Aetherous]

If the right to life, in the Declaration of Independence, is unalienable (I think it is)...then the Fifth Amendment infringes on that unalienable right: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Edited May 1, 2019 by Aetherous

[Pilgrim]

2 hours ago, silent thunder said:

I find I can break the laws of man all day long day in and out... and I may or may not get caught, and even then, I may or may not be prosecuted, and even then, I may or may not be penalized.

 

I cannot however break the laws of nature, on those, it's me that breaks.

Very well said.

 

In my view the laws of man are arbitrary.

 

The laws of nature are not they exist and are in effect regardless of who disagrees with them which reminds me of a fun bugs bunny skit.

 

In both cases however there is something set as greater than ones own will and ignorance of either tends to have consequences unless you are a Toon!

 

 

 

[windwalker]

1 hour ago, Pilgrim said:

In my view the laws of man are arbitrary.

 

The laws of nature are not they exist and are in effect regardless of who disagrees with them

 

Am I missing something, are not humans part of nature.  Thus subjected to what is observed.

Is not this observation uniquely expressed through humans.

 

"What goes up must come down"

 

No longer true.

 

Can something exist outside of the observer, or does it exist because it is observed. 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by windwalker

[zerostao]

The US Constitution is a highly remarkable work produced during the Enlightenment. That light faded long ago, 

Most have returned to darkness.

"The Light penetrated the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not."

"How light is a light?"

The only rights I have are the ones I fight for each and every day. it gets tiresome sometimes. 

yet, the alternative is way bleaker than the current reality I am experiencing.

I keep my batteries fresh in my flashlight, else if others noticed my beam going weak, well, like twichi said, she isn't afraid of the dark, only what's in it.

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by zerostao

[Pilgrim]

10 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

Am I missing something, are not humans part of nature.  Thus subjected to what is observed.

Is not this observation uniquely expressed through humans.

 

"What goes up must come down"

 

No longer true.

 

Can something exist outside of the observer, or does it exist because it is observed. 

 

Humans are a part of nature. the laws they create may even be part of nature but are not in effect outside of jurisdictional influence that enforces them. In Russia things are much different than the U.S. In Africa even more so, but no matter where you go or under whose jurisdictional influence you may place yourself Gravity continues to function. The use of force to overcome gravity or other technology like a hot air balloon does not negate the laws existence and influence weather observed or not. Even a sleeping man will fall to the floor if he rolls out of bed.

 

Humans are subject to what is observed as well as what is not.

 

Many things exist weather observed or not. In fact more exists than is possible to be observed.

[windwalker]

23 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

Many things exist weather observed or not. In fact more exists than is possible to be observed.

 

 

can you prove this,,,,how would one know what is there with out knowing its there

or by seeing effects that are not presently understandable using the knowledge of the day.

[Pilgrim]

Just now, windwalker said:

 

 

can you prove this,,,,how would one know what is there with out knowing its there

or by seeing effects that are not presently understandable using the knowledge of the day.

Oh that's easy by inference and knowledge of how things work. It really is not necessary to know about what is there, there is sufficient evidence planets exist outside of our solar system this was so before it was proven and once proven was hardly a surprise to anyone nor does it matter really. Maybe it will matter in the future but our tech is too primitive to get there anyway.

 

I can not see the amount of the telomres in my body yet I grow older and can see it in the mirror.  An interesting tech read : https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-a-telomere 

 

For the longest time no one understood the aging process nor could the actions of many processes nor could they be directly observed yet it occurred anyway, observation and comprehension have nothing to do with what is or is not.

 

The sun clearly existed before my birth and yours it will continue after we are gone.  Your ancestors and mine all existed yet now do not we can not observe them but know this must be so and they were real in time and space at one time or else we would not be here. 

 

Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound without anyone to hear it? Sure it does. 

[windwalker]

1 minute ago, Pilgrim said:

It really is not necessary to know about what is there, there is sufficient evidence planets exist outside of our solar system this was so before it was proven and once proven was hardly a surprise to anyone nor does it matter really. Maybe it will matter in the future but our tech is too primitive to get there anyway.

 

 

didnt answer the question, thats ok

 

we have different views.  nature in my view point follows no law unto itself...

 

evidence means effect, in olden days faith was used as the explanation 

for things that were not explainable 

 

Quote

This thread is for the discussion of whether rights (such as human rights, or what's referred to in the US Bill of Rights) exist or not.

 

 

back to the topic at hand,  my own view,  what are called human rights do not exist outside of the societies

that can protect, enact, and enforce them.  

 

rule of law: the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. 

 

law of the jungle: the principle that those who are strong and apply ruthless self-interest will be most successful .

 

notice the characterization about law of the jungle are based on emotion, and motive 

 

does what is called nature or natural function based on emotion, and motive 

 

[Pilgrim]

3 minutes ago, windwalker said:

didnt answer the question, thats ok

Ask again in a different way  

[joeblast]

15 hours ago, Pilgrim said:

Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound without anyone to hear it? Sure it does. 

Well, when holds fast to a certain definition of the word...

 

..."sound" can become "the perception of sound" in some definitions, hence the question does the tree make the (perception of) sound if no one is there to perceive it...

 

...its kinda like quickly and hastily conflating inalienable and unalienable   (lawstuff is not equivalent to word-fuckery for nothin' it is wholly intended for the juxtaposition to be given a quick and cursory glance and conclude as you did on it)

[Pilgrim]

 

2 hours ago, joeblast said:

inalienable and unalienable

I was unsure if there was a difference as I recalled there was not so I looked it up. Every source I saw including the ones I cited confirmed they mean the same thing.

 

If you have a link to something that proves otherwise I would not mind looking at it. Perhaps where the word was used in a lwasuit or something as the legal meaning is what you are talking about. 

 

Thanks.

 

 

[joeblast]

35 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

 

I was unsure if there was a difference as I recalled there was not so I looked it up. Every source I saw including the ones I cited confirmed they mean the same thing.

 

If you have a link to something that proves otherwise I would not mind looking at it. Perhaps where the word was used in a lwasuit or something as the legal meaning is what you are talking about. 

 

Thanks.

 

 

given what I've said about the acts of 1871, "if that's true" then you can see why there is a highly vested interest in maintaining easy conflation between the two terms.  may have to go back to black's second edition.  I'll get back to ya. 

[rideforever]

"Rights" are about removing your freedom to act on pain of incarceration.
And so the lying begins.

[Aetherous]

3 hours ago, joeblast said:

the acts of 1871

 

What are those?

[joeblast]

10 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

What are those?

the acts of 1871 were congress selling America out to the financiers, so that the financiers could then have their cut in perpetuity.

 

that was when all the civil war debts came due, the bankers came with harsh words, and our government capitulated to the point where it made things like the federal reserve, social security, the patriot act, and obamacare somehow compatible with US law.

 

all of those things are predicated upon what the acts of 1871 secured for the bankers, it was the when the USA went Zombie.

[Dynasty]

,,,,,,,,

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by Dynasty
mistake