A debate about rights and privileges

[rbarata]

I haven't read the previous posts but to me is clear: ones freedom ends when it starts another ones' freedom.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by DirtyCoconuts

Subrosa i believe that you are describing a utopia of one.

In order for your construct to function it assumes an equality that does not exist in nature at all. look at the example you gave....I will add my comments in bold to make it make sense ( i hope)

The natural rights all people possess are predicated upon the nature of an actual human life. The most basic of these rights is the right to one's own life. However a human life is not a self sustaining system. nor is the only obstacle it faces from starvation To sustain a life requires action, so if one is to have the right to their life, they must have the right to take action to sustain it.having the right does not mean you will succeed, if my neighbor and i are both hunting the same food, he will starve However actions are not really what sustains a life. You can act to obtain food, but if your actions do not actually result in you obtaining food, you'll starve. It is the results of our actions that sustain our lives Therefore if one is to have the right to their own life, they must by definition have the right to keep the results of their actions. the "right" maybe, but not if you lack the strength from stopping a srtonger person from taking it And by extension, anything one has a right to keep, one has the right to prevent it from being taken, whether it's one's life or simply the results of one's actions. This is the right to self defense, which is the only natural right which requires another person in order to exercise. And as I previously stated, since all people have the same natural rights, there can be no right of one person to violate the right of another. And that's it. That's the natural rights of man in a nutshell. only one...

if there were more than two then there would be a dominant and a weak and those rights would quickly feel a lot less real to the weak one...unless, as i suggested initially, people give up those "rights" to live together fairly

No, I'm describing the foundation of rights. You can't build a framework without a foundation, and if your framework weakens the foundation it rests upon, the structure collapses. The proper function of government is not to create rights, but to protect them.

[Clawhammer]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

No, I'm describing the foundation of rights. You can't build a framework without a foundation, and if your framework weakens the foundation it rests upon, the structure collapses. The proper function of government is not to create rights, but to protect them.

The foundation is the social contract as DC describes. This social contract can and will vary by the society who creates it, as it should, if it shall endure.

[WaterWitchin]

If one chooses to live within (or under) that particular government. Societies and governments tend to have varying opinions about what rights are important, and which are subordinate or irrelevant.

[DirtyCoconuts]

Subrosa, i do not disagree but i am describing does not even need any government to occur, just two people who decide to do certain things to work together.

look at caveman times..it is simpler. no authority, no governance of any kind and then...people decided to group together to get the benefits of that. in exchange they forego certain "rights".

the silliest example i can come up with is peeing and pooping everywhere...if this was the rule of the caveman group you wanted to be a part of...you have to give up that right. You still have the ability to do it but there are consequences.

that is all i meant by society is a group of people who decide on the freedoms or rights that they all agree they will give up for their own greater good.

[WaterWitchin]

Eeeewwww! And neophyte thought my beating a dead
Horse emoji was disturbing!

---------- Post added at 03:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 PM ----------

Originally Posted by rbarata

I haven't read the previous posts but to me is clear: ones freedom ends when it starts another ones' freedom.

rbarata. did you mean to say ones freedom ends when it interrupts another ones freedom?

---------- Post added at 03:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

I believe any human being of has the "ability" to do many things. The ability to love, steal, kill, share, cooperate, fornicate, pass judgment on another, lie, provide for another, etc. Are those really "rights?" I would call that foundation the human condition an "ability" but not a right. So with more than one human being around, am I able to do some things better than another? Sure. Am I unable to do some things better than another? Of course. That's ability.

To me, the word "rights" only come into play when more than one person is attempting to exist in the same sandbox. They may or may not grant another the "right" to do or not do something based on their own skills or lack thereof if one individual sees it best to cooperate with the other's varying abilities and disabilities.

From there, "rights" become a society of more than one person choosing to structure things to better or not better a particular situation. To me, that is the foundation. After that, the "rights" commence depending on the desire, wants, needs, of the particular society in question.

---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------

And PS... I have the ability to whine because I joined late to the party about knowing famous or infamous people. I still wanted to play... does that give me the right to complain? As a moderator of this forum I have superhuman powers, and I believe it gives me the right to complain.

[rbarata]

rbarata. did you mean to say ones freedom ends when it interrupts another ones freedom?

Yes! My freedom is authomatically conditioned when it starts to conditionate the freedom of other people.

Everyone's rights presupose responsabilities.

[Roberta]

Originally Posted by DirtyCoconuts

the silliest example i can come up with is peeing and pooping everywhere...if this was the rule of the caveman group you wanted to be a part of...

That reminds me of an absolutely hilarious routine, that I had the privilege to attend, from the late, great Lenny Bruce, with regard to the origin of the Penal Codes (something he had a lot of unfortunate experience with ) Ok, I'm of a "certain age"...

[WaterWitchin]

Originally Posted by rbarata

Yes! My freedom is authomatically conditioned when it starts to conditionate the freedom of other people.

Everyone's rights presupose responsabilities.

Gotcha. I thought that was what you meant. Just was hesitant to put words in your mouth.

[rbarata]

Gotcha. I thought that was what you meant. Just was hesitant to put words in your mouth.

After reading it later, it was a very strange english sentence...if it was english at all.