What are people entitled to?

[Kendo 2]

This is not true everywhere which renders your example invalid, from my standpoint at least. This is a general question and you are using a few examples of free countries, where these things are ratified by law. Look at countries such as Somalia or China. Two very different countries, but in neither of these countries do the same laws apply.

 

Yes, this was already covered. I have already surrendered the point that countries without an 'organic rights' clause or legal code are beyond the scope of what I'm giving examples of. I don't think it necessarily invalidates my point, I think it demonstrates a need that 'human rights' don't address. I feel that people not only have a right to life, they have a right to a pleasurable one, as defined by what 'organic rights' are.

[Sepherose]

This is not true everywhere which renders your example invalid, from my standpoint at least. This is a general question and you are using a few examples of free countries, where these things are ratified by law. Look at countries such as Somalia or China. Two very different countries, but in neither of these countries do the same laws apply.

 

Yes, this was already covered. I have already surrendered the point that countries without an 'organic rights' clause or legal code are beyond the scope of what I'm giving examples of. I don't think it necessarily invalidates my point, I think it demonstrates a need that 'human rights' don't address. I feel that people not only have a right to life, they have a right to a pleasurable one, as defined by what 'organic rights' are.

 

I think the miscommunication here is that people seem to be addressing the idea of innate rights naturally given at birth. As I stated, we have only one, do what you must to survive. Beyond that, I agree with you, but you have been addressing only what they should have, not whether or not there are any natural rights given by nature simply for being human. At least, that is what i have gathered from this whole exchange.

[kvnchrist]

It is true the basic right of existence, is existence, but I was thinking more along the lines of different people interacting with each other and the rights that they grant to those they do not know. Think of two aborigine tribes coming together for the first time, without hostility.

 

Mankind has come a long way and still has a long road before them. The issue of rights are well, documented, but they seem to miss that those written down are not only for those that wrote them, or the group they are apart of. The word inalienable, in the constitution is undeniable, but these are concepts that have been taken from other men and other societies.

 

Are these really natural rights, if these rights are the standard of one culture or the other. People. Forget about modern society when you are thinking about natural rights.

[HeyYou]

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.

 

And this was written by slave owners, and the use of the term "men" was meant literally. Women didn't get rights. They were little better than property. Kinda ironic don't ya think?

[Kendo 2]

And this was written by slave owners, and the use of the term "men" was meant literally. Women didn't get rights. They were little better than property. Kinda ironic don't ya think?

 

What's your point?

[HeyYou]

And this was written by slave owners, and the use of the term "men" was meant literally. Women didn't get rights. They were little better than property. Kinda ironic don't ya think?

 

What's your point?

 

That your "rights" are defined by the folks in power at the time, and are subject to change without notice, or approval.

[Lisnpuppy]

And this was written by slave owners, and the use of the term "men" was meant literally. Women didn't get rights. They were little better than property. Kinda ironic don't ya think?

 

What's your point?

 

That your "rights" are defined by the folks in power at the time, and are subject to change without notice, or approval.

 

I think that is correct to some extent..but also your rights are determined by the views of society and the morality of that society at the time.

 

*takes poking stick from Kendo and wacks in head* ha ha :tongue:

[kvnchrist]

And this was written by slave owners, and the use of the term "men" was meant literally. Women didn't get rights. They were little better than property. Kinda ironic don't ya think?

 

What's your point?

 

 

What was meant, back there as men excluded more than it included.

[Kendo 2]

What's your point?

 

That your "rights" are defined by the folks in power at the time, and are subject to change without notice, or approval.

 

But that's not what you said. You said:

And this was written by slave owners, and the use of the term "men" was meant literally. Women didn't get rights. They were little better than property. Kinda ironic don't ya think?

 

And that's irrelevant.

 

And I wasn't 'poking' anyone, Lisn and I don't appreciate the implication when I was simply asking for clarification on a post.

[HeyYou]

What's your point?

 

That your "rights" are defined by the folks in power at the time, and are subject to change without notice, or approval.

 

But that's not what you said. You said:

And this was written by slave owners, and the use of the term "men" was meant literally. Women didn't get rights. They were little better than property. Kinda ironic don't ya think?

 

And that's irrelevant.

 

And I wasn't 'poking' anyone, Lisn and I don't appreciate the implication when I was simply asking for clarification on a post.

 

At that point in time, African Americans weren't viewed as "men" any more than women were. It translated quite literally to WASP.