What are people entitled to?

[marharth]

The rights are given to you by the government. These rights do not exist outside of law and outside of the country in which the law rules over.

 

In the USA the government and the law insures us certain rights. That is not worldwide, and it is not a natural thing given to humanity.

Edited September 19, 2011 by marharth

[HeyYou]

What good is a right that you can't exercise? You may have a right to a fair trial, but, if you don't get one, whattayagonnado? Protest?

The only REAL 'innate' Right you have, that no one can take away, is the right to drop dead. (sorry, that seems kinda harsh..... not meant that way.) If your government decides you don't have the right of free speech, and denies you the exercise of that right, then was it really a 'right' to begin with? Or, was it a privilege of living in the right country?

I am surprised at you, you of all people debating this know that freedom is not free but carries with it the highest price of all, the same goes for your rights. It seems that at least ostensibly you are willing to let the government take away your rights if they so decide, I would not thought that of you if asked by another. The government exists by the consent of the governed, at least that is the formula that ours is structured under, if it exceeds it's mandate then you as an American have to hold them accountable and force the redress. There is the judiciary and the ballot box which provide remedies or recourse to a government that has overstepped it's bounds.

 

"We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom and our rights: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box."

 

Nope. I am NOT willing to let the government simply wave a pen, and make my rights go away. One of the reasons I make sure I get out and vote. Trouble with that is, the person I voted for won, and turned out NOT be the person he had campaigned as. The government has momentum. At this point, the pendulum is swingin' pretty hard and fast toward the government doing itself in. Unfortunately, they are going to take the rest of the country with 'em. I am campaigning as a write in candidate for president in 2012 though. :D Vote for me for common sense government. (although, I will more than likely piss off a fair few of our 'allies', and a selection of other nations to boot....... It's the whole omlette thing. :D)

 

Barring my winning the election though, I AM an advocate of NON-Violent overthrow of the current government. That will have consequences all its own though, one of the reasons I would prefer to at least make the attempt to work within the current system, before I just blythely toss it out with the bathwater.

[Ghogiel]

What has fighting or otherwise to maintain rights that your society has granted you, or setting up a different society that affords different rights, got to do with whether these rights are actually universal, innate and irrevocable?

 

 

"Should we blindly accept everything that a government does? Is there no point then in defiance?"

 

No. But that still doesn't tell us anything about these rights in context to the discussion, it might be entirely possible that at some point society can win against their masters, and just create a different set of rights. doesn't sound like inherent rights when a society has to go about changing them.

[ginnyfizz]

The rights are given to you by the government. These rights do not exist outside of law and outside of the country in which the law rules over.

 

In the USA the government and the law insures us certain rights. That is not worldwide, and it is not a natural thing given to humanity.

 

That flies in the face of the principles of the Founding Fathers, I think the confusion between innate fundamental rights and legislation is what helps governments get away with outrageous acts and is pushing us down the road of sleepwalking to tyranny.

 

In the name of the war on terror, for example, the British Government used Habeas Corpus (the ancient writ which is one of the things that protects the right to liberty) as bathroom tissue and extended the length of the period for which police can detain terrorist suspects without charge. The Labour Government wanted 90 days. Public outrage and campaign by the opposition got that reduced to 28 days. In my opinion, that is still too long, you can always formally charge them and remand them earlier, and we have had a bad record in the UK of getting the wrong man/woman as a knee jerk response to acts of terror, and a bad record on internment without trial in Ireland. If you have arrested someone without firm evidence in the first place, you are never going to succeed in court. So prepare case first, then arrest. Anyway, amid the hoohah about the detention issue other measures in regards to surveillance were sneaked in. And they have been roundly abused to spy on what people are putting in their bins and whether parents are cheating to get their kids into certain schools, and heaven knows what else.

 

So much for the mantra which I hear far too often for my liking "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear." The blind belief that has us sleepwalking to that tyranny. History tells us a different story.

 

Another commentator has the idea of natural rights thus;-

 

"Rights do not come from governments nor their Constitutions. They come from man's nature (and/or, if you prefer, his Creator). Thus governments should be instituted among men to protect rights, not to grant them or to violate them.

 

"Without consistent recognition and protection of individual rights, no civilization can last long. People's ability and willingness to simply live in close proximity to one another, let alone their ability and willingness to cooperate with one another, would be lost (Of course, the importance of rights is irrelevant to anyone who lives as a hermit in permanent isolation.). Anyone who uses even the tiniest product or benefit of civilization to advocate even the "tiniest" violation of human rights is guilty of perpetrating the fallacy of the stolen concept (in this case trying to use rights to deny rights), the inconsistency which destroys civilization, and all its benefits, in the long run (in effect using civilization to destroy civilization)."

-- Rick Gaber

[Ghogiel]

 

"Without consistent recognition and protection of individual rights, no civilization can last long. People's ability and willingness to simply live in close proximity to one another, let alone their ability and willingness to cooperate with one another, would be lost (Of course, the importance of rights is irrelevant to anyone who lives as a hermit in permanent isolation.). Anyone who uses even the tiniest product or benefit of civilization to advocate even the "tiniest" violation of human rights is guilty of perpetrating the fallacy of the stolen concept (in this case trying to use rights to deny rights), the inconsistency which destroys civilization, and all its benefits, in the long run (in effect using civilization to destroy civilization)."

-- Rick Gaber[/b][/i]

I think this guy might get it. An man born alone on an island has total freedom from morality. It is only when society occurs that a pact amongst them must be made to grant each other rights, a code of behaviour towards other people must be created if co existence is going to be possible. Thus rights are born. They are a by product of civilisation, and if that civilisation doesn't recognise them and protect any particular individuals rights, he won't have them.

 

When they are inalienable let me know, I've been waiting for the dark ages to end since I got here. :biggrin:

 

Even then I don't think they can be considered innate. At best they can be considered innate to some modern societies. But not people as an entire entity.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Kendo 2]

Reading back through the thread, people keeping missing one caveat, or there might be simple case of misinterpretation.

 

What are people entitled to, by nature and what should they be entitled to as a member of a society? Should there be a level of responsibility to those supplying the support structures?

 

Being part of society/community/nation, we have common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests. Those traditions and interests include inalienable rights, if the society in question is a free one. Also, there is nothing in the original post mandating an all-inclusive 'global' view. By nature and by society, that's what it says.

[kvnchrist]

Global view? How many societies are there? Just yours or mine? People are entitled by birth for a chance at survival. A reasonable treatment, and a chance to take them as far as their ambition, persistence and skills will allow. Society is a whole new world from that. The only thing in society that can be depended on is you have a better chance to get something out of it, the more you put in and if you depend on others you have nothing solid to stand on, only their good graces. You loose their favor, you lose your standing.

[Kendo 2]

Global view? How many societies are there? Just yours or mine? People are entitled by birth for a chance at survival. A reasonable treatment, and a chance to take them as far as their ambition, persistence and skills will allow. Society is a whole new world from that. The only thing in society that can be depended on is you have a better chance to get something out of it, the more you put in and if you depend on others you have nothing solid to stand on, only their good graces. You loose their favor, you lose your standing.

 

I agree, and there is nothing in my post to imply that I wouldn't.

[kvnchrist]

Global view? How many societies are there? Just yours or mine? People are entitled by birth for a chance at survival. A reasonable treatment, and a chance to take them as far as their ambition, persistence and skills will allow. Society is a whole new world from that. The only thing in society that can be depended on is you have a better chance to get something out of it, the more you put in and if you depend on others you have nothing solid to stand on, only their good graces. You loose their favor, you lose your standing.

 

I agree, and there is nothing in my post to imply that I wouldn't.

 

 

Dude, I don't get personal with people unless they get personal with me. Your good in my books. I was just trying to clarify my previous statements for others.

[Ghogiel]

Reading back through the thread, people keeping missing one caveat, or there might be simple case of misinterpretation.

 

What are people entitled to, by nature and what should they be entitled to as a member of a society? Should there be a level of responsibility to those supplying the support structures?

 

Being part of society/community/nation, we have common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests. Those traditions and interests include inalienable rights, if the society in question is a free one. Also, there is nothing in the original post mandating an all-inclusive 'global' view. By nature and by society, that's what it says.

Even to say that, first establish that the assertion that any of these rights discussed thus far that a society might afford someone is in fact inalienable, what ever definition has be put forth thus far. There have have been several exceptions put forward when these rights are in fact voided. If one would say oh but in a society with a tradition that grants inalienable rights, further limiting inalienable rights only to free ones, in those that wouldn't happen. Then what exactly is the definition of inalienable that you are using? Simply a right that a society might or might not grant to it's populace that is supposedly irrevocable? That differs greatly from the ones that have been put forward.

 

Other wise with the examples of society taking or them being taken away from society, it just comes back to> You have these inalienable rights: X,Y, Z, unless you don't, they are taken away, or you forfeit them.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Ghogiel