What are people entitled to?

[HeyYou]

That's the sort of basic human rights some of us are talking about, the argument being that they are not Government given, they just...are there.

You don't have rights unless other people agree you have rights. Rights are not given to you at birth, they are decided upon by man.

 

:wallbash: If we accept that argument, we might as well all roll over and give up even trying to fight overbearing Government, since we would be accepting they can do whatever the heck they like and we have no cause or reason to fight them.

 

As Aurelius says, the ballot box, the jury box and in the last resort, the cartridge box. Even in laid back Britain we went so far as to cut off one King's head (and later boot his younger son out)due to his interference with what were perceived to be natural rights. Actually it was pretty ironic how the English Civil War was sparked by an instance of taxation without representation, just as the American Revolution later was.

 

Not sure that we are left a lot of choice on the 'acceptance' part...... do we get a choice? Or is that choice simply an illusion perpetuated by the government/industrial complex? Who decides whom we get as choices to vote for? (hint: the folks with the money that finance political campaigns.) Here in the states, I seriously doubt the american people would rise up to throw off the yoke of an overbearing government. We are too divided..... (on purpose?)

[pseudobio]

I find it amazing how people on the right think that liberals hate freedom. Makes me wonder if anyone knows history anymore, and where the word started...

First off topic post and a personal attack.

 

Back on topic:

 

From the preamble of the United States Declaration of Independence

"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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

 

In France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen this sentiment is again enumerated by "the natural and imprescriptible rights of man" to "liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression".

 

It is clear the intent of both documents was to provide irrevocable organic rights that cannot be governed or controlled by later generations.

 

It is a topic about what we are entitled to, so talking about freedom is not off topic. If it was, that would have meant you were the one posting the first one posting off topic. Don't try to say that I am breaking the rules when you don't want to reply to something.

 

Men wrote those documents. Men decided the rights. Your rights are decided by people and law, not by nature. I find it amazing anyone can disagree with that. Just because certain men in the past said we have rights given to us by nature, does not mean it is true. Those men decided the rights, and future generations further decided rights.

 

 

So, does that mean that given I am a disabled individual, that society has the "right" to deny me the right to life simply because I have a partially non-functioning arm and leg? It is the very organic nature of the rights to life, liberty, and property (namely my own body) that I like. It means I can make those decisions about myself, and others can not decide for me. I do not need society deciding for me, in their "greater wisdom" as abled-bodied individuals, that my life has value or not. Just because I have a disabled body, it does not mean my judgement is also automatically assumed to be equally disabled. I am the judge of my own value. The very organic nature of those rights is insurance for me against the tyranny of the abled-bodied majority to decide I lack enough value to deem my life unworthy of living. The organic nature of the Rights of Man is intended to protect the minority from being "lorded over" by the majority, that by human nature become bullies when in large groups.

[Aurielius]

So, does that mean that given I am a disabled individual, that society has the "right" to deny me the right to life simply because I have a partially non-functioning arm and leg? It is the very organic nature of the rights to life, liberty, and property (namely my own body) that I like. It means I can make those decisions about myself, and others can not decide for me. I do not need society deciding for me, in their "greater wisdom" as abled-bodied individuals, that my life has value or not. Just because I have a disabled body, it does not mean my judgement is also automatically assumed to be equally disabled. I am the judge of my own value. The very organic nature of those rights is insurance for me against the tyranny of the abled-bodied majority to decide I lack enough value to deem my life unworthy of living. The organic nature of the Rights of Man is intended to protect the minority from being "lorded over" by the majority, that by human nature become bullies when in large groups.

Not in my concept of a political universe, your rights to survive should have no correlation to any physical disability. You have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, there is no caveat to that in the Constitution.

[pseudobio]

So, does that mean that given I am a disabled individual, that society has the "right" to deny me the right to life simply because I have a partially non-functioning arm and leg? It is the very organic nature of the rights to life, liberty, and property (namely my own body) that I like. It means I can make those decisions about myself, and others can not decide for me. I do not need society deciding for me, in their "greater wisdom" as abled-bodied individuals, that my life has value or not. Just because I have a disabled body, it does not mean my judgement is also automatically assumed to be equally disabled. I am the judge of my own value. The very organic nature of those rights is insurance for me against the tyranny of the abled-bodied majority to decide I lack enough value to deem my life unworthy of living. The organic nature of the Rights of Man is intended to protect the minority from being "lorded over" by the majority, that by human nature become bullies when in large groups.

Not in my concept of a political universe, your rights to survive should have no correlation to any physical disability. You have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, there is no caveat to that in the Constitution.

 

 

Thank you Aurielius, I am glad we agree. It seems to me, however, that because Marharth does not agree with the organic nature of The Rights of Man, if the majority tomorrow decided to pass a law to partition off the disabled (can read groups like Jews, Gypsies, and Bosnians as well) into a seperate community or even to commit genocide against them, that it would not only be legal, but right because the majority said so. Even if you do not agree that liberty or property are organic rights, life itself MUST be considered an organic right, for to not do so endangers everyone to the whim of a society that deems you such an outsider that you are unworthy of even survival.

[Ghogiel]

Calling it how it is, is not the same as complacency to allow things I don't find in harmony with my moral outlook to happen. :facepalm:

 

One has nothing to do with the other.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Aurielius]

Calling it how it is, is not the same as complacency to allow things I don't find in harmony with my moral outlook to happen. :facepalm:

 

One has nothing to do with the other.

Just curious why do you feel empowered to be the arbiter of both? There must have been a consular election I missed.:facepalm:

[Ghogiel]

Both what?

[pseudobio]

That's the sort of basic human rights some of us are talking about, the argument being that they are not Government given, they just...are there.

You don't have rights unless other people agree you have rights. Rights are not given to you at birth, they are decided upon by man.

 

:wallbash: If we accept that argument, we might as well all roll over and give up even trying to fight overbearing Government, since we would be accepting they can do whatever the heck they like and we have no cause or reason to fight them.

 

As Aurelius says, the ballot box, the jury box and in the last resort, the cartridge box. Even in laid back Britain we went so far as to cut off one King's head (and later boot his younger son out)due to his interference with what were perceived to be natural rights. Actually it was pretty ironic how the English Civil War was sparked by an instance of taxation without representation, just as the American Revolution later was.

 

 

Ginnyfizz, I agree wholeheartedly. If we accepted Marharth's argument, we would be nothing but tools and toys for those in power to play with. In such a world, we wouldn't have the right to protest being treated badly by our "betters".

 

On another note, I hope you don't mind if I say I love you for your critical thinking my lady with an armoral shield with a Redhead Rampant. :)

[Ghogiel]

That's the sort of basic human rights some of us are talking about, the argument being that they are not Government given, they just...are there.

You don't have rights unless other people agree you have rights. Rights are not given to you at birth, they are decided upon by man.

 

:wallbash: If we accept that argument, we might as well all roll over and give up even trying to fight overbearing Government, since we would be accepting they can do whatever the heck they like and we have no cause or reason to fight them.

 

As Aurelius says, the ballot box, the jury box and in the last resort, the cartridge box. Even in laid back Britain we went so far as to cut off one King's head (and later boot his younger son out)due to his interference with what were perceived to be natural rights. Actually it was pretty ironic how the English Civil War was sparked by an instance of taxation without representation, just as the American Revolution later was.

 

 

Ginnyfizz, I agree wholeheartedly. If we accepted Marharth's argument, we would be nothing but tools and toys for those in power to play with. In such a world, we wouldn't have the right to protest being treated badly by our "betters".

What exactly has being of the view that rights are a product of society, rather than some magically bestowed upon us ones, got to do with complacency with the powers that be? It is entirely possible to state that our actual rights on the ground are only what society we live grants us, and at the same time be all about equality, freedom and peace.

 

just because I don't think they .. just are, doesn't mean I am a zombie. :facepalm:

 

If it comes down to your interpretation of morality then I argue that they are entirely subjective, and what is considered morally acceptable varies from time, place and culture. In fact right now there are millions of people that actually have no moral objection to putting homosexuals to death, just for being so inclined. There really are people that find that acceptable. I would further argue that, if you or I were born in these places, it is entirely possible that we would also be indoctrinated into whatever culture we were brought up in, and our morals would probably reflect that.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Ghogiel

[hoofhearted4]

in america, we are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

 

but worldwide, unless your on top, your only entitled to what those who are on top say you are entitled to. it sucks, but its the truth.