What are people entitled to?

[marharth]

Is everyone seriously agreeing that rights are decided once, and can't be changed over time?

 

Human rights are not decided at a single point. Humanity evolves over time, and with that our decisions to deal with morals and other issues also evolve.

 

If our rights did not change over time and we strictly followed a 200 year old document without making any changes, human rights would be completely different today.

Edited September 17, 2011 by marharth

[Ghogiel]

I don't know. I'm kinda lost in what is being said and agreed upon at this point. :confused:

[Kendo 2]

That kinda sums up what liberalism is about. Democracy, a fundamental set of equal human rights, freedom from oppression.

Second off topic post.

 

The merits of one political leaning or another is not the subject of the debate.

 

From the OP:

"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?"

 

Back on topic:

The first documented concept of 'organic rights' in the modern era was by John Locke, one of the principle authors of slave law in the British colonies, who advocated "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property". As defined, 'property' in that context constituted 'black servants and white slaves'. The verbage was reused by the Colonial Founding Fathers and the context redefined to include 'all men'. It goes without saying the true meaning was 'all free men', as Native Americans, African slaves and indentured white slaves did not receive any measure of protection until 1833.

 

I believe we all have these organic rights, no matter what form our government takes. The concept is there and carved in stone. People want to be free.

[marharth]

Maybe its just me and Ghogiel, but what exactly is this debate supposed to be about, and what are we agreeing and disagreeing on?

 

We can all agree that the rights set out in the Declaration of Independence make sense right? Why is that a subject of this debate?

Edited September 17, 2011 by marharth

[Ghogiel]

 

Back on topic:

The first documented concept of 'oranic rights' in the modern era was by John Locke, one of the principle authors of slave law in the British colonies, who advocated "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property". As defined, 'property' in that context constituted 'black servants and white slaves'. The verbage was reused by the Colonial Founding Fathers and the context redefined to include 'all men'. It goes without say the true meaning was 'all free men', as Native Americans, African slaves and indentured white slaves did no receive any measure of protection until 1833.

 

I believe we all have these organic rights, no matter what form our government takes. The concept is there and carved in stone. People want to be free.

Being that came into actual practice in law in western society at a particular time suggests that it is construct of society itself. Prior to that time it may have been normal to see slaves. Many cultures have a serf class, or religious or cultural right to slaving. Any where from a Viking to a Roman.

 

The subject is about morality, which is another form of agreed upon set of behaviours between a group of people. These are historically known to vary from time and place. They aren't universal even in the increasingly smaller world of today.

[marharth]

 

Back on topic:

The first documented concept of 'oranic rights' in the modern era was by John Locke, one of the principle authors of slave law in the British colonies, who advocated "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property". As defined, 'property' in that context constituted 'black servants and white slaves'. The verbage was reused by the Colonial Founding Fathers and the context redefined to include 'all men'. It goes without say the true meaning was 'all free men', as Native Americans, African slaves and indentured white slaves did no receive any measure of protection until 1833.

 

I believe we all have these organic rights, no matter what form our government takes. The concept is there and carved in stone. People want to be free.

Being that came into actual practice in law in western society at a particular time suggests that it is construct of society itself. Prior to that time it may have been normal to see slaves. Many cultures have a serf class, or religious or cultural right to slaving. Any where from a Viking to a Roman.

 

The subject is about morality, which is another form of agreed upon set of behaviours between a group of people. These are historically known to vary from time and place. They aren't universal even in the increasingly smaller world of today.

This is what my point is, which is why I am confused if I am missing the point of the topic or something.

[Kendo 2]

*sighs*

 

I am pointing out that 'what people are entilted to' is documented and can't be redefined to suit the politcal whims of whatever party has control at the moment. It doesn't matter if the Declaration is 200 years or 2 million years old. It stands as is, and that is intentional and to keep later generations from screwing over citizens with what they think 'is best'.

[Ghogiel]

Oh you are only taking about the US citizens, and not people.

[Kendo 2]

Oh you are only taking about the US citizens, and not people.

 

Well, being United States citizen, that is the path I have chosen. The Declaration is a document near and dear to me. I have a copy of it hanging in my den. I'm familiar with and I can defend it and use it as a basis for my end of this debate.

 

And if someone reads the OP's statement and 'doesn't get it', maybe they should move to a topic they are more in line with and leave this one to the debaters who are interested in pursuing it.

 

EDIT: And I've made an opening statement and two factual follow ups. Now I wait.

[marharth]

Oh you are only taking about the US citizens, and not people.

 

Well, being United States citizen, that is the path I have chosen.

This is why I am confused with you posting quotes from The Declaration. This topic is about what people are entitled to, so I don't quite understand why the rights stated in that document has anything to do with the debate.

 

Are you saying the only rights humanity should receive are the ones in The Declaration? What is your purpose for posting the quotes? That is what I am trying to figure out.