Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

What are peoples rights?

ProfessorLiberty
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 4:01:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
We know that we have rights, but where do we get these rights come from and what are they?

They come from our exsitence. The fact that we live means that we have rights. I am not granted rights, I have rights. But what are my "rights?"

Since are rights come from our exsitence, so it must be true that rights can not be given or granted by the government, nor should they be restricted by the government. Our rights are also non-agressive. Do you have the right to kill someone? No, because that person has the right to life.

So that means that there are things we need to stop calling "rights." Do people have the right to health care? No, but people should have care. Do people have the right to free education? No, but they should have an education.

So the entire "It is my right" argument to contraceptives, health care, etc. Is invalid. I'm not saying people shouldn't have those things, they should, but your employer is not responsible for your health, except at the workplace.

For example: Hobby Lobby. Do I agree with Hobby Lobby not wanting to provide contraceptives? (Assuming that I agree with ACA, which I don't.) No, but they have no obligation to pay for your contraceptives.

This may seem cold hearted, but it's true.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 5:29:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 4:01:21 AM, ProfessorLiberty wrote:
We know that we have rights, but where do we get these rights come from and what are they?

They come from our exsitence. The fact that we live means that we have rights. I am not granted rights, I have rights. But what are my "rights?"

Since are rights come from our exsitence, so it must be true that rights can not be given or granted by the government, nor should they be restricted by the government. Our rights are also non-agressive. Do you have the right to kill someone? No, because that person has the right to life.

So that means that there are things we need to stop calling "rights." Do people have the right to health care? No, but people should have care. Do people have the right to free education? No, but they should have an education.

So the entire "It is my right" argument to contraceptives, health care, etc. Is invalid. I'm not saying people shouldn't have those things, they should, but your employer is not responsible for your health, except at the workplace.

For example: Hobby Lobby. Do I agree with Hobby Lobby not wanting to provide contraceptives? (Assuming that I agree with ACA, which I don't.) No, but they have no obligation to pay for your contraceptives.

This may seem cold hearted, but it's true.

It might be that no one has any rights. No right to f*ck with anyone else.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:37:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 4:01:21 AM, ProfessorLiberty wrote:
We know that we have rights, but where do we get these rights come from and what are they?

They come from our exsitence. The fact that we live means that we have rights. I am not granted rights, I have rights. But what are my "rights?"

Since are rights come from our exsitence, so it must be true that rights can not be given or granted by the government, nor should they be restricted by the government. Our rights are also non-agressive. Do you have the right to kill someone? No, because that person has the right to life.

So that means that there are things we need to stop calling "rights." Do people have the right to health care? No, but people should have care. Do people have the right to free education? No, but they should have an education.

So the entire "It is my right" argument to contraceptives, health care, etc. Is invalid. I'm not saying people shouldn't have those things, they should, but your employer is not responsible for your health, except at the workplace.

For example: Hobby Lobby. Do I agree with Hobby Lobby not wanting to provide contraceptives? (Assuming that I agree with ACA, which I don't.) No, but they have no obligation to pay for your contraceptives.

This may seem cold hearted, but it's true.

I've noticed that discussions of rights is tend to be filtered through supposed insights into which ones exist and which don't. But this 'existence' is either ambiguously explained or, as in the above example, not explained at all. On a general level rights don't exist where they have no material significance. The idea that a murder victim had (or has?) a right to life is unimportant. They have physically died so whatever metaphysical spectacle yer signifying by the word 'rights', to them, obviously didn't hold much worth. But that's not to say that rights as a concept have no value. Rather, a shift in discussion needs to made away from reference to non-existent abstractions and more towards an understanding of where these concepts originate. Why do we employ the concept of rights in the first place? Well, in a simplified sense it is in order to physically secure certain holdings. Not being murdered, having access to healthcare, etc. refer to things which we (on an individual or collective level) want. And while looking at rights in this way does kill yer metaphysical high horse, it shifts the debate towards discussion of what sorts of rights we want for ourselves and for the people around us. Murder, exploitation, oppression, repression, these are things that just happen. Whether we want them to happen or not is the basis of the conscious creation of practices which eliminate or reduce them. It's disingenuous to argue that one should have access to healthcare while at the same time arguing against practices which could afford them that out of some vague gesturing to metaphysical abstractions. Not that I agree with the ACA. The question of specific practice is one to be had after we shake off the idea that our actions must conform to weak Enlightenment-era conceptions of rights in the first place.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Mike_10-4
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 10:53:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:37:28 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/5/2014 4:01:21 AM, ProfessorLiberty wrote:
We know that we have rights, but where do we get these rights come from and what are they?

They come from our exsitence. The fact that we live means that we have rights. I am not granted rights, I have rights. But what are my "rights?"

Since are rights come from our exsitence, so it must be true that rights can not be given or granted by the government, nor should they be restricted by the government. Our rights are also non-agressive. Do you have the right to kill someone? No, because that person has the right to life.

So that means that there are things we need to stop calling "rights." Do people have the right to health care? No, but people should have care. Do people have the right to free education? No, but they should have an education.

So the entire "It is my right" argument to contraceptives, health care, etc. Is invalid. I'm not saying people shouldn't have those things, they should, but your employer is not responsible for your health, except at the workplace.

For example: Hobby Lobby. Do I agree with Hobby Lobby not wanting to provide contraceptives? (Assuming that I agree with ACA, which I don't.) No, but they have no obligation to pay for your contraceptives.

This may seem cold hearted, but it's true.

I've noticed that discussions of rights is tend to be filtered through supposed insights into which ones exist and which don't. But this 'existence' is either ambiguously explained or, as in the above example, not explained at all. On a general level rights don't exist where they have no material significance. The idea that a murder victim had (or has?) a right to life is unimportant. They have physically died so whatever metaphysical spectacle yer signifying by the word 'rights', to them, obviously didn't hold much worth. But that's not to say that rights as a concept have no value. Rather, a shift in discussion needs to made away from reference to non-existent abstractions and more towards an understanding of where these concepts originate. Why do we employ the concept of rights in the first place? Well, in a simplified sense it is in order to physically secure certain holdings. Not being murdered, having access to healthcare, etc. refer to things which we (on an individual or collective level) want. And while looking at rights in this way does kill yer metaphysical high horse, it shifts the debate towards discussion of what sorts of rights we want for ourselves and for the people around us. Murder, exploitation, oppression, repression, these are things that just happen. Whether we want them to happen or not is the basis of the conscious creation of practices which eliminate or reduce them. It's disingenuous to argue that one should have access to healthcare while at the same time arguing against practices which could afford them that out of some vague gesturing to metaphysical abstractions. Not that I agree with the ACA. The question of specific practice is one to be had after we shake off the idea that our actions must conform to weak Enlightenment-era conceptions of rights in the first place.

During the Enlightenment Era, inspired by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson discovered our Unalienable Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

There is scientific empirical evidence all life has Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the physical Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, Unalienable Rights is not man-made, but part of the physical Laws of Nature.
http://www.amazon.com...
http://www.amazon.com...

According to Takac, there is an imbedded bio-program, found throughout all life. This bio-program is simply, once alive, "Life," must have the freedom ("Liberty"), in "the pursuit of" survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, survival is a form of positive-feedback and a prerequisite for human "Happiness." Hence, Thomas Jefferson's celebrated discovery, which he declared "self-evident" and used the labeled Unalienable Rights representing a polished version of this bio-program by the following, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."