A debate about rights and privileges

[Subrosa]

WaterWitchin Says... At request of debater(s) and others who may want to chime in, the following excerpts have been copied from another thread:


Your First Amendment rights are superseded by the property rights of others. If you don't agree, come on my property saying something I don't want you to say. The police I call to remove you may not stop you from saying what you have to say, but you will be saying it as they drag you away. I don't know what you've posted, but I know that I've been in some heated debates here, and I don't pull any punches. But I don't throw my verbal punches at the person, I throw them at the idea I take exception to. And I can say that this is the only online forum I've ever been a member of where I haven't been officially sanctioned. This forum is the most tolerant of less than polite speech I've ever been on.

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

Originally Posted by DirtyCoconuts

of course they should be censoring the things they deem inappropriate or offensive.

Even in America where there is "free" speech you still cant say anything with no consequence.

this is not a state, this is not your house, this is a digital construct of a community and it adheres to the same principals of any society...you exchange certain freedoms for the benefits of living with others.


If you don't want to be here, no one is forcing you, it is not a right to be here. Someone pays for the bandwidth and they have every right to run it as they see fit.

I strongly disagree that living a society necessitates giving up rights or freedoms. Rights are innate, and not granted nor taken away merely by virtue of the company one chooses to keep. Society implies government, and government either respects or does not respect our innate rights and freedoms. But when going on to someone else's private property it is quite often the case that you do give up rights in order to have the property owner's permission to be there.

[DirtyCoconuts]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

I strongly disagree that living a society necessitates giving up rights or freedoms. Rights are innate, and not granted nor taken away merely by virtue of the company one chooses to keep. Society implies government, and government either respects or does not respect our innate rights and freedoms. But when going on to someone else's private property it is quite often the case that you do give up rights in order to have the property owner's permission to be there.

Subrosa. What I said was not an opinion. It is a foundational maxim of political science so I am sure I was not clear

The easiest example is this. In the time of cavemen it was beneficial to work together however it required adherence to an order. The simplest of terms no murder no stealing. If you don’t adhere you are killed or exiled. You still have the ABILITY to do those things, you have just given up the RIGHT to do so.

Rights are not innate, they are the agreed upon constructs of a given group.

I am not talking at all about inherent freedom of thought and am not suggesting if it is right or wrong in the moral sense but everyone has “given up” many of the rights they would have on their own for the benefits of the society.
These are what law are. They are what we have determined we don’t want in our society and so we outlaw that behavior.

The right to kill. The right to steal. I do not have these rights

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by DirtyCoconuts

Subrosa. What I said was not an opinion. It is a foundational maxim of political science so I am sure I was not clear

The easiest example is this. In the time of cavemen it was beneficial to work together however it required adherence to an order. The simplest of terms no murder no stealing. If you don’t adhere you are killed or exiled. You still have the ABILITY to do those things, you have just given up the RIGHT to do so.

Rights are not innate, they are the agreed upon constructs of a given group.

I am not talking at all about inherent freedom of thought and am not suggesting if it is right or wrong in the moral sense but everyone has “given up” many of the rights they would have on their own for the benefits of the society.
These are what law are. They are what we have determined we don’t want in our society and so we outlaw that behavior.

The right to kill. The right to steal. I do not have these rights

The flaw in that logic lies your definition of rights, and in the fundamental nature of rights. One tenet is that all people possess the same fundamental rights, whether or not the system they live under respects those rights. Since the primary right is the right to one's own life and each person has that right, there can be no right for one person to take the life of another, except in self defense, which is also a basic human right. Same goes for property.

[WaterWitchin]

Carry on...

[DirtyCoconuts]

Ahhhh yes! the fundamental weakness in expression, the limitation of words.

lets make some ground rules...are we discussing RIGHTS in the sense of permission granted from a higher governing body (of any kind) or rights more akin to a "god given right" as in an ABILITY.

i have the same rights as my neighbor in the eyes of the law (removing bias and prejudice) but he and I are not equal. I am a giant of a man compared to him. I can dunk a basketball, he cannot. I can physically out perform him does that mean i have more rights than he does?

yes and no. In the first sense of permission to act a certain way, we are equal. But i have more abilities than he does.


so if the discussion is about the abdication of the permission to act a certain way, you are correct, that is not the point i was referring to in my original statement. I am referring to the fact that we, as cavemen and as modern humans, give up the "right" to exercise certain "abilities" in order to remain in society.

look at a criminal. they have the ability take something from some else by force or trickery but they do not have the right to because it is something they have given up in order to be a part of society.

if they don't, they are removed from society


it is almost impossible to have a discussion like this without a lot of clearing up the definitions we are using so i greatly appreciate the continued dialogue

[Clawhammer]

I'll just chime in and say I agree with DC's social contract theory.

I believe different cultures/societies will define rights differently and weigh the good of the whole vs individual differently, which proves political rights are not inalienable for all of humanity.

Its timely conversation considering the current debate about keeping people safe vs the right to go get a mani-pedi.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by DirtyCoconuts

Ahhhh yes! the fundamental weakness in expression, the limitation of words.

lets make some ground rules...are we discussing RIGHTS in the sense of permission granted from a higher governing body (of any kind) or rights more akin to a "god given right" as in an ABILITY.

i have the same rights as my neighbor in the eyes of the law (removing bias and prejudice) but he and I are not equal. I am a giant of a man compared to him. I can dunk a basketball, he cannot. I can physically out perform him does that mean i have more rights than he does?

yes and no. In the first sense of permission to act a certain way, we are equal. But i have more abilities than he does.


so if the discussion is about the abdication of the permission to act a certain way, you are correct, that is not the point i was referring to in my original statement. I am referring to the fact that we, as cavemen and as modern humans, give up the "right" to exercise certain "abilities" in order to remain in society.

look at a criminal. they have the ability take something from some else by force or trickery but they do not have the right to because it is something they have given up in order to be a part of society.

if they don't, they are removed from society


it is almost impossible to have a discussion like this without a lot of clearing up the definitions we are using so i greatly appreciate the continued dialogue

"Rights" granted by government are not rights at all, merely privileges granted by government fiat. Particularly when they grant the "right" of one group to violate the natural rights of another. They are fleeting and illusory, subject to the whim of whoever is in power. Voting is a perfect example of such a "right". The natural rights of human beings are innate and cannot be taken away by a governing body. A governing body can choose not to protect them, but these rights predate the existence of government.

[Clawhammer]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

"Rights" granted by government are not rights at all, merely privileges granted by government fiat. Particularly when they grant the "right" of one group to violate the natural rights of another. They are fleeting and illusory, subject to the whim of whoever is in power. Voting is a perfect example of such a "right". The natural rights of human beings are innate and cannot be taken away by a governing body. A governing body can choose not to protect them, but these rights predate the existence of government.

Sounds a little too close to the Divine Right of Kings to me.

[Subrosa]

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. 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. 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. 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 tge right of another. And that's it. That's the natural rights of man in a nutshell.

---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Clawhammer

Sounds a little too close to the Divine Right of Kings to me.

And rights granted by the whim of a government and enforced by force or threat of force by that government doesn't?

---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:25 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Clawhammer

Sounds a little too close to the Divine Right of Kings to me.

The fundamental difference is that under the divine right of Kings, only the king had these rights, not every individual.

[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