Total Posts:240|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rights

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2010 1:38:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value. "Rights," or proper social limits, arise from the requirements of life for those who have developed such minds- that is, from the syllogisms arising from the choice to live and the general facts of reality. You see, human beings need to use their mind without barrier to produce the various things they need, and thus need other such beings to refrain from creating such barriers to use of their mind and application to action. Since this is a reciprocal need, it is in each party's own self interest that they each refrain from violating it unless in retaliation to the other violating it, that is, so long as the other person's interfering with your need is a necessary condition of your violation of theirs, and vice versa, a RIGHT is established that you each possess-knowledge of how to protect yourself. This particular one, protection from barriers to use of the mind, is known as the right of liberty. A related one, protection from barriers to enjoyment of the product thereof, is known as the right of property. The source of these, at base, is the reciprocal need to not have actions taken toward your own destruction, this is known as the right to life.

My answers seem to have degraded as I forget to copypasta my good ones so here ya go for the 9001st time.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2010 1:38:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
A concept used to limit our actions. You have the right to do this, you don't have the right to do that. And all this is decided by someone else for you.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2010 1:40:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/23/2010 1:38:16 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A concept used to limit our actions. You have the right to do this, you don't have the right to do that. And all this is decided by someone else for you.

Maybe the concept of freedoms is superior, you are free to do whatever so long as it is not explicitly prohibited? Rights could just ensure that those freedoms are never infringed upon.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2010 1:46:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
For me, it's not something very profound at all. Rights are just a bunch of rules made up by society in-order to raise our standard of living by a process of trail and error.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2010 1:54:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/23/2010 1:50:16 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value.

Explain such a link for me.

Cannot have the rest without it.

Therefore, none other can be higher, as none can be ordinally preferred to it-- such a preference is incoherent.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2010 3:00:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There are no such things as "rights" - just privileges that are enshrined by law.

Some of these rights infringe upon the rights of others.

For example the right of country landowners to enjoy the sole use of their private property, when enforced, denies the right of the general public to have free access to the countryside.

In this case the rights of the few prevail of the rights of the many.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2010 3:11:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/23/2010 1:54:44 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/23/2010 1:50:16 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value.

Explain such a link for me.

Cannot have the rest without it.

In turn you can't have man's mind without life, or without the existence of a world. So under that reasoning...?
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2010 7:02:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
To count as a right does it need be inalliable?
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2010 1:49:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Rights are simply claims made by individuals as to what they believe they're entitled to, and what is and isn't acceptable to do towards that claim.

Simple as that. They're not a construct of either society or state, as rights exist prior to both. Indeed, society and state are found in the idea of common agreement on rights and the need to enforce, adjudicate and codify those rights. But at the most basic level, rights are based in the individual. They're how we all relate to one another. The laws, official or not, by which each individual acts towards another. Rights are there to prevent me from attacking you, and when they do fail to prevent, they give justification for you defending yourself.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2010 7:00:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/23/2010 3:11:05 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 4/23/2010 1:54:44 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/23/2010 1:50:16 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value.

Explain such a link for me.

Cannot have the rest without it.

In turn you can't have man's mind without life, or without the existence of a world. So under that reasoning...?
T-1st is still 1st. The point is that you can't coherently sacrifice any of those things for any of the others and claim to achieve value by it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2010 10:30:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value.

mmm... you can care more about your child than your own life (including your mind)

What you care for, and in what degree isn't something you can decide based on reason... reason may take your "cares" and better sort them... but what you ultimately care about is not your choice...

Whether or not such a thing means you won't be able to Valuate things in the future, you can still be compelled to put your life on the line for other things if you care more for those other things than for your own life (and such caring comes naturally/ is not rationally chosen)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2010 11:00:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/23/2010 10:30:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value.

mmm... you can care more about your child than your own life (including your mind)
Sounds like a stolen concept to me.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 12:58:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/23/2010 11:00:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/23/2010 10:30:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value.

mmm... you can care more about your child than your own life (including your mind)
Sounds like a stolen concept to me.

what???
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 1:48:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
T-1st is still 1st. The point is that you can't coherently sacrifice any of those things for any of the others and claim to achieve value by it.

The point is that if you attempt to ground the existence of rights on the causal priority of X, then what prevents you from doing the same when I give you examples of things that are causally prior to X?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 9:18:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/24/2010 1:48:22 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
T-1st is still 1st. The point is that you can't coherently sacrifice any of those things for any of the others and claim to achieve value by it.

The point is that if you attempt to ground the existence of rights on the causal priority of X, then what prevents you from doing the same when I give you examples of things that are causally prior to X?

You mean like the right to life? It's already wrapped up in the theory. (The world existing is of course implied by the right to life.) They are irreducibly wrapped up, you can pick any of them and derive the others.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 10:53:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/23/2010 1:01:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm a Lockean natural rights kind of guy.

Do you also agree with his modified lesser property rights for corporations?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 11:11:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/23/2010 1:38:16 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value. "Rights," or proper social limits, arise from the requirements of life for those who have developed such minds- that is, from the syllogisms arising from the choice to live and the general facts of reality. You see, human beings need to use their mind without barrier to produce the various things they need, and thus need other such beings to refrain from creating such barriers to use of their mind and application to action. Since this is a reciprocal need, it is in each party's own self interest that they each refrain from violating it unless in retaliation to the other violating it, that is, so long as the other person's interfering with your need is a necessary condition of your violation of theirs, and vice versa, a RIGHT is established that you each possess-knowledge of how to protect yourself. This particular one, protection from barriers to use of the mind, is known as the right of liberty. A related one, protection from barriers to enjoyment of the product thereof, is known as the right of property. The source of these, at base, is the reciprocal need to not have actions taken toward your own destruction, this is known as the right to life.

My answers seem to have degraded as I forget to copypasta my good ones so here ya go for the 9001st time.

How is something a right if it is not concrete? You talk as if rights can be relinquished. Even if I kill someone, I should have the right to life, correct? If something is a right, it can not be taken away. There is no relinquishing it. If I violate your right to property, or life, it doesn't give you the moral right to take mine away.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 11:15:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/24/2010 11:11:46 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:

How is something a right if it is not concrete? You talk as if rights can be relinquished. Even if I kill someone, I should have the right to life, correct? If something is a right, it can not be taken away. There is no relinquishing it. If I violate your right to property, or life, it doesn't give you the moral right to take mine away.

You relinquish your rights if you violate others' rights? Though that goes against the concept of something being "objectively" a right, I suppose. Saying that it can be taken away makes it subjective.
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 11:19:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/24/2010 11:15:14 AM, theLwerd wrote:
You relinquish your rights if you violate others' rights? Though that goes against the concept of something being "objectively" a right, I suppose. Saying that it can be taken away makes it subjective.

Unless we're talking about positive rights.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 11:20:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/24/2010 11:15:14 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 4/24/2010 11:11:46 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:

How is something a right if it is not concrete? You talk as if rights can be relinquished. Even if I kill someone, I should have the right to life, correct? If something is a right, it can not be taken away. There is no relinquishing it. If I violate your right to property, or life, it doesn't give you the moral right to take mine away.

You relinquish your rights if you violate others' rights? Though that goes against the concept of something being "objectively" a right, I suppose. Saying that it can be taken away makes it subjective.

Yep, that's what I'm getting at. If something should always be valued (the human rationality apparently being the highest value), no matter what, then it can not be relinquished no matter what - even if that person is a monster. Rights aren't objective, then, according to Ragnar's Objectivism.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 11:23:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/24/2010 11:19:55 AM, Nags wrote:
At 4/24/2010 11:15:14 AM, theLwerd wrote:
You relinquish your rights if you violate others' rights? Though that goes against the concept of something being "objectively" a right, I suppose. Saying that it can be taken away makes it subjective.

Unless we're talking about positive rights.

So murdering is ok if the person you are murdering has stolen your cow. So murdering is not morally wrong. Murdering is just an action you can and can not take depending on the situation. Therefore, murdering is not objectively wrong.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 11:35:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/24/2010 11:22:18 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Such as?

Voting. Voting is a positive right and can be taken away just as fast as it can be given. Positive rights are subjective. Which is my point. You were saying that "that goes against the concept of something being 'objectively' a right."

At 4/24/2010 11:23:06 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
So murdering is ok if the person you are murdering has stolen your cow. So murdering is not morally wrong. Murdering is just an action you can and can not take depending on the situation. Therefore, murdering is not objectively wrong.

Right to life is a negative right, not a positive right. So I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 11:51:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/24/2010 10:53:30 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 4/23/2010 1:01:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm a Lockean natural rights kind of guy.

Do you also agree with his modified lesser property rights for corporations?

Eh, I'm a bit ambivalent on that part.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 12:00:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/24/2010 11:35:54 AM, Nags wrote:
At 4/24/2010 11:22:18 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Such as?

Voting. Voting is a positive right and can be taken away just as fast as it can be given. Positive rights are subjective. Which is my point. You were saying that "that goes against the concept of something being 'objectively' a right."

At 4/24/2010 11:23:06 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
So murdering is ok if the person you are murdering has stolen your cow. So murdering is not morally wrong. Murdering is just an action you can and can not take depending on the situation. Therefore, murdering is not objectively wrong.

Right to life is a negative right, not a positive right. So I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Negative and positive rights is a false dichotomy. Anything can be a positive and a negative right - you just have to re-word it. Rather silly, actually. Either something is a right, or it is not.

"What is at stake is the liberty of the poor not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs. Needless to say, libertarians would want to deny that the poor have this liberty. But how could they justify such a denial? As this liberty of the poor has been specified, it is not a positive right to receive something, but a negative right of non-interference." -- James P. Sterba Big Sky Dilemma: Must Doctors Help Their Patients Die?"
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.