Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does being alive make you entitled to things?

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:00:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 7:52:46 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
... Discuss please

No being alive gives you certain freedoms.

Rights come from governments, in the attempt to protect those freedoms in a social network.

Entitlements are awarded by those in power over the government.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:02:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:00:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/10/2015 7:52:46 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
... Discuss please

No being alive gives you certain freedoms.
I would argue that it gives you ALL freedoms in existence. As long as you have the willpower, you can attempt any action, even if you are destined to fail.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:03:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:00:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Rights come from governments, in the attempt to protect those freedoms in a social network.
Do you not buy into the famous inalienable rights of the enlightenment age?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:20:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:03:07 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:00:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Rights come from governments, in the attempt to protect those freedoms in a social network.
Do you not buy into the famous inalienable rights of the enlightenment age?

I certainly do.

1. Jefferson wrote "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..." So my wording was same as his.

2. The concept is older than the enlightened age.

3. The idea is synonymous many times with natural rights.

I want to address the modern semantics and changes in the wording of natural and inalienable. Today Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. Inalienable being defined as rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws.

I think the law of man could very easily be written to restrain inalienable rights. It's what makes a government a tyranny.

I make a distinction between freedoms and rights. Freedoms being natural and complete while Rights are constrained freedoms issued by mankind.

So I prefer "certain inalienable freedoms." I define inalienable as "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor." And I consider these to be intimately linked to an organisms mechanical makeup and physical laws.

Such as having a mouth means I have a freedom of speech. I can say anything. Anything and everything I want in the range of human speech. I trade this freedom in for the "right to free speech". Which stipulates that I don't shout fire in a crowded movie theater and such. And this is to gain the benefits of working with a society instead of against it.

So I restate my first post. Life itself doesn't give any entitlements. It gives certain freedoms. Entitlements are exclusive resources or titles granted by those running the government.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 5:33:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've never understood this kind of talk about natural or unalienable rights. Surely, a government has the power to kill me. Since any further freedoms I may have are predicated on the fact that I'm alive, it follows that there are no freedoms afforded to me which a government could not conceivably be given the power to take away. This is why I understand rights more along the lines of being a function of a contract, rather than as being descriptive aspects of being alive. Also, the fact that something is impossible to take from me doesn't mean that I ought to have it; these descriptions always seem to collapse into might making right.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 11:24:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 5:33:33 AM, sdavio wrote:
I've never understood this kind of talk about natural or unalienable rights. Surely, a government has the power to kill me. Since any further freedoms I may have are predicated on the fact that I'm alive, it follows that there are no freedoms afforded to me which a government could not conceivably be given the power to take away. This is why I understand rights more along the lines of being a function of a contract, rather than as being descriptive aspects of being alive. Also, the fact that something is impossible to take from me doesn't mean that I ought to have it; these descriptions always seem to collapse into might making right.

Yep, absolutely agreed.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 6:40:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 7:52:46 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
... Discuss please

No... Not in the slightest. You are entitled to "things" based on the structure built around you - your tribe. These are fine, and have been a net benefit for the species.
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 2:17:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:02:17 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:00:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/10/2015 7:52:46 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
... Discuss please

No being alive gives you certain freedoms.
I would argue that it gives you ALL freedoms in existence. As long as you have the willpower, you can attempt any action, even if you are destined to fail.

This is true. You're free to do absolutely anything you possibly can, you're not free from the consequences however.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 2:18:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Entitled: believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment:

Society owes you no special treatment just because you were born.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 2:36:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 2:18:10 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
Entitled: believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment:

Society owes you no special treatment just because you were born.

I was hoping this would extend into political discussion as well. If we can come to common ground on this, conversations on "rights" and social spending policies become much more intriguing.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 2:46:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 5:33:33 AMany , sdavio wrote:
I've never understood this kind of talk about natural or unalienable rights. Surely, a government has the power to kill me. Since any further freedoms I may have are predicated on the fact that I'm alive, it follows that there are no freedoms afforded to me which a government could not conceivably be given the power to take away. This is why I understand rights more along the lines of being a function of a contract, rather than as being descriptive aspects of being alive. Also, the fact that something is impossible to take from me doesn't mean that I ought to have it; these descriptions always seem to collapse into might making right.

That's what rights are de facto. But by purporting these as invariant laws of nature, you maintain the normative force required to secure its recognition among states.

As it is with ethics in general, the object is to advance a personal and in some sense societal interest, and that's difficult to do if the argument is presented as a voluntary, contractual quid pro quo.... especially when you consider the asymmetry of bartering power between the two parties (the state and the people).

That is to say - perhaps inalienable rights are best understood as a necessary delusion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 12:00:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 2:46:55 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2015 5:33:33 AMany , sdavio wrote:
I've never understood this kind of talk about natural or unalienable rights. Surely, a government has the power to kill me. Since any further freedoms I may have are predicated on the fact that I'm alive, it follows that there are no freedoms afforded to me which a government could not conceivably be given the power to take away. This is why I understand rights more along the lines of being a function of a contract, rather than as being descriptive aspects of being alive. Also, the fact that something is impossible to take from me doesn't mean that I ought to have it; these descriptions always seem to collapse into might making right.

That's what rights are de facto. But by purporting these as invariant laws of nature, you maintain the normative force required to secure its recognition among states.

As it is with ethics in general, the object is to advance a personal and in some sense societal interest, and that's difficult to do if the argument is presented as a voluntary, contractual quid pro quo.... especially when you consider the asymmetry of bartering power between the two parties (the state and the people).

That is to say - perhaps inalienable rights are best understood as a necessary delusion.

I there's at least an argument to be made about this point. Is this illusion (assuming we all agree it's a complete illusion here) really beneficial to society? We have throughout history lived in a culture in which the overwhelming majority believed in an innate right and ethics which applied to all "citizens" of that culture. Originally this was simply the father of a family; the others were only mediated versions of the father's spirit occupying separate physical bodies - they were not acknowledged as different legal entities (citizens). Not many would believe that the conceptions of "right" or "man" at any stage throughout history prior the the current ones were beneficial, however; when we look back at those concepts of "man" as citizen which ruled at any previous time, we are appalled by how limiting, unscientific, and cruel these distinctions were. We wish that the people of those cultures could look past the prejudices of those "innate" understandings and see each other for who they really were.

Any emancipatory progress made by minority groups was made at the expense of the legal distinctions previously seen as innate. The a priori definition of the citizen has been the primary barrier through which any subversive movement must break. As far as they've used their own rhetoric of "human rights" this humanity has been a very different one than what was previously acknowledged. Look at Malcolm X; his speeches use a certain concept of human rights, but at all points this is differentiated from the philosophy of integration which says that a minority group must simply fit into the place which is already designated to them. X sees rights as something to be taken. Essentially: the difference he aims at is not a bureaucratic one, but an actual shift in the balance of powers. This is where I see the true potential for a subversive philosophy or movement; to question the very idea that there is some selected group to which the universe grants special privileges; to allow alienated groups to assert themselves in a language other than that through which everything is "already understood" and by which the citizen is defined.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
DB8
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 12:49:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 7:52:46 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
... Discuss please

It makes me entitled to die. :)
I tried to write my signature on the screen but my pen ran out of ink.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 4:37:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 12:00:23 PM, sdavio wrote:
This is where I see the true potential for a subversive philosophy or movement; to question the very idea that there is some selected group to which the universe grants special privileges; to allow alienated groups to assert themselves in a language other than that through which everything is "already understood" and by which the citizen is defined.

Very good philosophical basis for anarchism there. It is quite interesting to see so many people acting so confident that their system is the right one. This is usually a result of some pre-indoctrinated public opinion.

I wanted to relieve myself of shitt like that. I no longer wanted to pretend that I wasn't intrinsically selfish, nor did I want to continue pretending for the sake of conformity that the United States was actually working in my favor. The only way I was ever going to find truth, is if I made the self conscious decision to no longer be ruled over by lies.

That is why I like the anarchist movement. I never claim for it to be some perfect solution to all of the world's problems, but I do think it relieves many burdens, and the confrontations that we encounter upon having to actually take responsibility and be self sufficient, actually create a source of self taught knowledge and enlightenment for us.

I think this is like you said earlier in your post too, but we do not really possess anymore freedom than those of citizens in ancient times. There was a time before civil law and conventional taxation, and much evidence to believe these people lived simpler, happier, and longer lives than the citizens of today's societies.
10cents
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 4:58:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 7:52:46 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
... Discuss please : :

Whoever made you believe you're alive is the one who entitles you to experience life but only as planned. It's impossible for you to become the president of the U.S. if you weren't made to be one.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 6:21:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 7:52:46 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
... Discuss please

I believe it does. In particular, I think your mere existence, makes you entitled to your body. It's you who inhabit and control the body, and it's you who it belongs to.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 4:54:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/21/2015 4:37:42 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/20/2015 12:00:23 PM, sdavio wrote:
This is where I see the true potential for a subversive philosophy or movement; to question the very idea that there is some selected group to which the universe grants special privileges; to allow alienated groups to assert themselves in a language other than that through which everything is "already understood" and by which the citizen is defined.

Very good philosophical basis for anarchism there. It is quite interesting to see so many people acting so confident that their system is the right one. This is usually a result of some pre-indoctrinated public opinion.

I wanted to relieve myself of shitt like that. I no longer wanted to pretend that I wasn't intrinsically selfish, nor did I want to continue pretending for the sake of conformity that the United States was actually working in my favor. The only way I was ever going to find truth, is if I made the self conscious decision to no longer be ruled over by lies.

That is why I like the anarchist movement. I never claim for it to be some perfect solution to all of the world's problems, but I do think it relieves many burdens, and the confrontations that we encounter upon having to actually take responsibility and be self sufficient, actually create a source of self taught knowledge and enlightenment for us.

I think this is like you said earlier in your post too, but we do not really possess anymore freedom than those of citizens in ancient times. There was a time before civil law and conventional taxation, and much evidence to believe these people lived simpler, happier, and longer lives than the citizens of today's societies.

My views might differ from yours on the topic of egoism, but generally I feel what you've expressed here, and I'm glad there's more anarchist members on this site :P.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 6:33:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sure. Every child has the right to be cared for, for example.

Beyond that, I can't see how it could not be the case that we are all entitled to a certain subsistence level of living, which would probably come in the form of a welfare state. I don't really see how freedom could exist for many (most) people without either a welfare state or something similar.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 11:27:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:00:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/10/2015 7:52:46 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
... Discuss please

No being alive gives you certain freedoms.

Rights come from governments, in the attempt to protect those freedoms in a social network.

Entitlements are awarded by those in power over the government.

"Rights come from governments,' Not in America They come from our creator GOD that's why they can never be taken away. The Govt will obviously violate those rights and write laws saying we don't have those rights, But we still do even when the govt burns you at the steak or executes you. Having rights and having them be acknowledged by govt are two completely different subjects.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 11:49:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Having rights and having them be acknowledged by govt are two completely different subjects.

As anyone being burnt at the 'steak' would probably agree. What use is a "god given right" if it can be so easily ignored my man? What use a god that can't enforce the rights he grants?

If there was a god, people would have rights and goverments would be powerless to abrogate them. If there was a god, the bad would suffer and the good would prosper (but it seems to be the other way around on this world). If there was no god, the world would be the chaotic, faintly insane mess it is.

At least we can't blame a non-existent god for any of the mess the world is in - we did it all ourselves!

There is nothing outside man to grant, enforce, deny or abrogate rights. We have complete freedom to grant and deny rights as we please. It is just that we aren't very good at it - our selfishness and greed makes us ignore our finer attributes at the drop of an opportunity.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 2:19:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 11:27:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:00:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/10/2015 7:52:46 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
... Discuss please

No being alive gives you certain freedoms.

Rights come from governments, in the attempt to protect those freedoms in a social network.

Entitlements are awarded by those in power over the government.

"Rights come from governments,' Not in America They come from our creator GOD that's why they can never be taken away. The Govt will obviously violate those rights and write laws saying we don't have those rights, But we still do even when the govt burns you at the steak or executes you. Having rights and having them be acknowledged by govt are two completely different subjects.

I understand "rights" was the word used in the U.S. Declaration of independence. How ever over the years and the way it is being used today i like to make a distinction between natural freedoms, and legal rights.
Emgaol
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 12:39:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 7:52:46 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
... Discuss please

"Does being alive make you entitled to things?"
Other than doing your best to remain alive, no!
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 2:27:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 11:49:34 PM, kp98 wrote:
Having rights and having them be acknowledged by govt are two completely different subjects.

As anyone being burnt at the 'steak' would probably agree. What use is a "god given right" if it can be so easily ignored my man? What use a god that can't enforce the rights he grants?

If there was a god, people would have rights and goverments would be powerless to abrogate them. If there was a god, the bad would suffer and the good would prosper (but it seems to be the other way around on this world). If there was no god, the world would be the chaotic, faintly insane mess it is.

At least we can't blame a non-existent god for any of the mess the world is in - we did it all ourselves!

There is nothing outside man to grant, enforce, deny or abrogate rights. We have complete freedom to grant and deny rights as we please. It is just that we aren't very good at it - our selfishness and greed makes us ignore our finer attributes at the drop of an opportunity.

You miss the point completely. The founders of this nation said our rights come from God on purpose. It was to tell other men they don't have the power to change or take them away. Man is imperfect and man is deceitful. he can not be trusted with such power. That is why man tries laboriously to try and take your rights away. This is why character matters. Only men of high moral character who believe in god will defend your rights. All the rest interpret your rights and find legal mumbo jumbo ways to convince you you don't have them. Evil happens when good men do nothing.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 4:42:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 2:27:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
You miss the point completely. The founders of this nation said our rights come from God on purpose. It was to tell other men they don't have the power to change or take them away. Man is imperfect and man is deceitful. he can not be trusted with such power. That is why man tries laboriously to try and take your rights away. This is why character matters. Only men of high moral character who believe in god will defend your rights. All the rest interpret your rights and find legal mumbo jumbo ways to convince you you don't have them. Evil happens when good men do nothing.

Excuse me for the legal mumbo jumbo, but can God himself choose to take away my rights? If he has that option, then my rights are 'alienable', and thus my right is simply the might of God. In what sense is this actually an innate right, when I'm simply throwing my good faith to a higher bidder? God is only a larger and more threatening might.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 4:53:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Even a being of infinite power does not have the might to give an instruction a truth value.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 8:06:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 4:42:26 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/26/2015 2:27:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
You miss the point completely. The founders of this nation said our rights come from God on purpose. It was to tell other men they don't have the power to change or take them away. Man is imperfect and man is deceitful. he can not be trusted with such power. That is why man tries laboriously to try and take your rights away. This is why character matters. Only men of high moral character who believe in god will defend your rights. All the rest interpret your rights and find legal mumbo jumbo ways to convince you you don't have them. Evil happens when good men do nothing.

Excuse me for the legal mumbo jumbo, but can God himself choose to take away my rights? If he has that option, then my rights are 'alienable', and thus my right is simply the might of God. In what sense is this actually an innate right, when I'm simply throwing my good faith to a higher bidder? God is only a larger and more threatening might.

God is not deceitful. If God were to take away your rights YOU are the reason not some blood sucking deceitful lying lawyer or politician using legal mumbo jumbo
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 4:31:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 8:06:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 11/26/2015 4:42:26 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/26/2015 2:27:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
You miss the point completely. The founders of this nation said our rights come from God on purpose. It was to tell other men they don't have the power to change or take them away. Man is imperfect and man is deceitful. he can not be trusted with such power. That is why man tries laboriously to try and take your rights away. This is why character matters. Only men of high moral character who believe in god will defend your rights. All the rest interpret your rights and find legal mumbo jumbo ways to convince you you don't have them. Evil happens when good men do nothing.

Excuse me for the legal mumbo jumbo, but can God himself choose to take away my rights? If he has that option, then my rights are 'alienable', and thus my right is simply the might of God. In what sense is this actually an innate right, when I'm simply throwing my good faith to a higher bidder? God is only a larger and more threatening might.

God is not deceitful. If God were to take away your rights YOU are the reason not some blood sucking deceitful lying lawyer or politician using legal mumbo jumbo

How could I take away my own rights? That contradicts the meaning of the word. It seems more like God is the only one who has rights, and he allows me the 'privilege' of not burning in hell, as long as I do what he says.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 3:18:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 4:31:39 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/26/2015 8:06:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 11/26/2015 4:42:26 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/26/2015 2:27:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
You miss the point completely. The founders of this nation said our rights come from God on purpose. It was to tell other men they don't have the power to change or take them away. Man is imperfect and man is deceitful. he can not be trusted with such power. That is why man tries laboriously to try and take your rights away. This is why character matters. Only men of high moral character who believe in god will defend your rights. All the rest interpret your rights and find legal mumbo jumbo ways to convince you you don't have them. Evil happens when good men do nothing.

Excuse me for the legal mumbo jumbo, but can God himself choose to take away my rights? If he has that option, then my rights are 'alienable', and thus my right is simply the might of God. In what sense is this actually an innate right, when I'm simply throwing my good faith to a higher bidder? God is only a larger and more threatening might.

God is not deceitful. If God were to take away your rights YOU are the reason not some blood sucking deceitful lying lawyer or politician using legal mumbo jumbo

How could I take away my own rights? That contradicts the meaning of the word. It seems more like God is the only one who has rights, and he allows me the 'privilege' of not burning in hell, as long as I do what he says.

"How could I take away my own rights? " You ask and answer your own question in one sentence. That being said, if you prefer your rights be given to you by some nit wit politician who treat them as subjective then that is your perogitive
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%