What are "Rights"?

[Autolykos]

What are "rights"?

I think that they are simply constructions of the human mind. In other words, "rights" don't really exist. Freedom, however, does really exist.

Thoughts?

[RebelWithanAK]

Sounds like you got a pretty skewed idea of what "Freedom" is, Mr. Anarchist.

[Sasha]

Read Thomas Hobbes

I havent, but he does talk of these things

We are not free without others allowing us freedom, i.e. dictatorships. There are some freedoms society has deemed everybody is entitled to, these are rights.

Among the questions discussed by Alan Dershowitz in his book, America Declares Independence (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New Jersey, Canada), 2003, (which he “lovingly dedicated to my dear departed friends and colleagues Stephen J. Gould and Robert Nozick, with whom I taught together for so many years and on whose intellectual influences I will always be dependent”) was that of: “Where do rights come from?” “Do we have ‘unalienable rights’?” “Do rights to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happness’ have any meaning? “How could slaveowners claim to believe that ‘all men are created equal’? “Is the God of the Declaration the God of the Bible?” “Does the Declaration establish a Christian State?” And “Are there ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God’?”

His book has been described as: “challenging, upsetting, and controversial.” I am stilll reading and rereading it! And from the way it is formatted, my website whose “welcome” comments include “Comprehensive World History” and “Contemporary Issues” - despite its focus on “the people of African descent” heritage in “World History” better extended and entitled: “Human Biological and Cultural History”: HistoryAfricanAfricanAmericanEgyptia...groups.msn.com - it is still open to: Politics & Government, Philosophy & Religion, Society & Rights, Current Events & The Media, and Science and Technology, and the comments of Volconvo members are welcomed, as I have indicated to the Volconvo manager - who after becoming familiar with my website, issued an invitation to me to join Volconvo and its members in discussing the aforementioned issues.
The other book which may be relevant to the “God,” “Religion,” and “Rights” issues is: Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman’s The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts written by a Jewish archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein, “director of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University; director of the university’s excavations at Tel Megiddo, and author of The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement and Living on the Fringe, among other books, field reports, and scholarly articles.” The co-author, Neil Asher Silberman, “is director of historical interpretation for the Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation in Belgium; contributing editor to Archaeology magazine, and the author of The Hidden Scrolls: Christianity, Judaism, and the War for the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Message and the Kingdom, and Digging for God and Country, among other books.” [lc5827 - lclloyd@sbcglobal.net ]

[RebelWithanAK]

What website?

What discussion?

Why must god saturate all your questions on what rights we have?

[Autolykos]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
Sounds like you got a pretty skewed idea of what "Freedom" is, Mr. Anarchist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

That adds nothing to the debate, and your ad hominem attacks are unwarranted. Why don't you offer us your own definition for "rights" instead?

[Suburbanite]

Why do Rights have to be real? They are ideological AS IS freedom and every other word. But words are what make us up, and "Rights" is one of those words.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
What website?

What discussion?

Why must god saturate all your questions on what rights we have?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Re: the "god" question: The publisher's description of Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts (2002) states: "Is the Bible true? For the last hundred and fifty years a war has been waged over the historical reliability of the Hebrew scriptures. Recent dramatic discoveries of biblical archaeology have cast serious doubt on the familiar account of ancient Israel and the origins of the Judeo-Christian tradition. .. They ... offer a dramatic new version of the history of ancient Israel, bringing archaeological evidence to bear on the question of when, where and why the Bible was first written.

Re: "God" and Alan Dershowitz's American Declares Independence (2003), in the chapter "Who Is the God of the Declaration," he states: "The drafters of our 18th century Declaration of Independence could not have had more different views than those held by today's Falwells, Robertsons, Dobsons, Keyeses, Liebermans, and Novaks. Indeed, as will become evident from a review of the relevant history, Jefferson intended his Declaration to free us not only from the religious oppression of evangelical clergymen who elevate 'monkish ignorance and superstition' over the 'unbound exercise of reason' and 'the light of science.' He certainly did not accept the insulting notion that there could be no virtue without religion, since he did not care whether anyone, even those closest to him, believed or disbelieved in God, as long as they relied on their own reason, and not the dogma of others, in reaching their decision."

[Disinvented]

The Fallacy of "Life, Liberty, and Property"

Let go of the misconception that you have any natural rights. There are no natural rights, there is merely the ability (and inability) to obtain and maintain a particular object or state of being. The word "right" indicates something that others are obligated to respect, however in the natural world, there are no inherent obligations--there is only survival.

There is no right to life, but merely the ability to maintain life through sustenance and personal defense. In nature, life consumes life, and no creature has no more right to live than any other, no animal anymore right to life than any plant. However, many individuals have more "ability to live;" they are better suited to survival; what Darwin deemed "survival of the fit."

There is no right to liberty, but merely the ability to obtain and maintain liberty. In the natural world, nothing is inherently free, and no creature is inherently obligated to observe the liberty of any other.

There is no right to property, but merely the ability to obtain and maintain property. A person cannot own land, because ownership suggests that others must recognize and respect the owner's right to own whatever it is that is claimed to be owned. A person can claim land, and endeavor to keep it by whatever means necessary and available. All the inhabitable land in the world is claimed by people who actually believe that they own it, that they actually have some entitlement to it. The truth is, they merely possess the land (actually, since landowners will loose land if they do not pay property taxes, they are more land-renters than landowners). Landownership is only as valid as the paper the land deeds are written on.

To say this is mine or that is mine is false, because nothing is inherently owned. It would be more correct to say I possess this or I possess that (possession is not ownership). Just because you possess something, even if you make it yourself, does not mean that you are now naturally entitled to it, meaning that others must recognize and respect your entitlement.

[Jackney Sneeb]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Disinvented,)
The Fallacy of "Life, Liberty, and Property"

Let go of the misconception that you have any natural rights. There are no natural rights . . .

There is no right to life . . .

There is no right to liberty . . .

There is no right to property . . .
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

And I add "There is no right to rule others." The natural implication of the preceding statements is anarchy.

--Jackney Sneeb

[Disinvented]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)

And I add "There is no right to rule others." The natural implication of the preceding statements is anarchy.
--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Absolutely, burn it all to the ground. I'll add, though, that there is no obligation to not rule others. Morality is man-made--the product of humankind's romanticism, our delusions of self purpose and self value--and therefore, is not an inherent mandate. Morality is the Weak's cry to all others that all must be fair: "It's not fair that you're stronger and therefore get more and better resources!" It is the oppression of the stronger by the weaker; an attempt to level the playing field by manipulating the hormone saturated (ergo: emotional) human brains of the general populus into romanticizing some ethereal laws to which all are inherently bound. The tools of morality are fear and guilt: one party fears another, so they guilt them into submission.

Back to anarchy...
In actuality, civilization is an anarchy. The strong and in-power exploit us, just as the weak are exploited in nature. The many band together to coerce the few, like swarming bees. We are exploited by the strong (politicians and leaders), and risk the sting of the swarms (incarceration, social ostracism, etc.) if we fail to conform. The same patterns in nature manifest in civilization, people just tend to be too arrogant in their intelligence as a species to recognize the parallelisms. There are predators and there are prey, strong and weak, the fittest and the less fit. I have no need to topple the towers of "the Establishment" to achieve anarchy or freedom, I already have absolute freedom to do whatever I deem possible. However, I also recognize that individual bullies will band together to burden me with unpleasant repurcussions. I do yearn for its destruction-- Society's, the Establishment's, Civilization's--as a general threat to my security and contentment, just as I would seek the destruction of a threatening predator in nature.

[Jackney Sneeb]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Disinvented,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)

And I add "There is no right to rule others."  The natural implication of the preceding statements is anarchy.
--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Absolutely, burn it all to the ground. I'll add, though, that there is no obligation to not rule others.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I disagree. I think each of us has an obligation to leave other people alone (unless they invite our company), keep our hands to ourselves (unless they give permission), and generally mind our own business. Naturally, some people won't accept that arrangement. That's anarchy for you.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Disinvented,)
Morality is man-made--the product of humankind's romanticism, our delusions of self purpose and self value--and therefore, is not an inherent mandate. Morality is the Weak's cry to all others that all must be fair: "It's not fair that you're stronger and therefore get more and better resources!" It is the oppression of the stronger by the weaker; an attempt to level the playing field by manipulating the hormone saturated (ergo: emotional) human brains of the general populus into romanticizing some ethereal laws to which all are inherently bound. The tools of morality are fear and guilt: one party fears another, so they guilt them into submission.

Back to anarchy...

In actuality, civilization is an anarchy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
That's true. It does not follow that we therefore must accept the status quo and tolerate assholes trying to impose their will on us by force.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Disinvented,)
The strong and in-power exploit us, just as the weak are exploited in nature. The many band together to coerce the few, like swarming bees. We are exploited by the strong (politicians and leaders), and risk the sting of the swarms (incarceration, social ostracism, etc.) if we fail to conform. The same patterns in nature manifest in civilization, people just tend to be too arrogant in their intelligence as a species to recognize the parallelisms. There are predators and there are prey, strong and weak, the fittest and the less fit. I have no need to topple the towers of "the Establishment" to achieve anarchy or freedom, I already have absolute freedom to do whatever I deem possible. However, I also recognize that individual bullies will band together to burden me with unpleasant repurcussions. I do yearn for its destruction-- Society's, the Establishment's, Civilization's--as a general threat to my security and contentment, just as I would seek the destruction of a threatening predator in nature.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I suggest a way to do that is to help others quit supporting politicians. I've seen several former DemocRATs, Repooplicans, and Libertarians give up their irrational belief and quit voting, and begin to resist taxes. That is how we will abolish the belief in "government": one person at a time.

--Jackney Sneeb

[Samildanach]

Naturally the human species has no rights therefore Rights are an agreed upon artificial set of circumstances, agreed upon by a majority of a specific species with regard to themselves or another species. They usually specify what is regarded as a basic need for that species. In defining rights for a species the definers are also obligated to try to enforce the idea of those rights and provide where those rights are not provided for where-ever possible or else the whole concept of a 'right' becomes worthless.
Subsequently I could reasonably ask society to help me meet those artificial set of circumstances defined as rights and they would be obligated to help me meet them.

[Packratt]

It's an interesting question, I'll admit that.

Rights are the things we are permitted to do, thus in order to have rights one must also have rules outlining in what regards we do not have rights. So, rights involve a duality, rights cannot exist without restrictions on freedom.

So, is it possible to have no restrictions on freedom, (rights without rules)?

Yes, sure, it's possible. But I'm not certain it's sustainable for an animal that is dependent on social constructs as a survival mechanism to avoid extinction without some rules of social interaction, whether those rules are enforced by an external power (government), or an internal control, (morals).

We all have rules, a construct of what parameters we may act within given any situation. These may or may not match what "rights" are granted to us by an external control, but they exist and do so for a reason. We are social creatures and in order to be effective as such there must be rules of social engagement, (the social contract).

[Disinvented]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Disinvented,)
Absolutely, burn it all to the ground. I'll add, though, that there is no obligation to not rule others.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'></span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)

I disagree.  I think each of us has an obligation to leave other people alone (unless they invite our company), keep our hands to ourselves (unless they give permission), and generally mind our own business.  Naturally, some people won't accept that arrangement.  That's anarchy for you.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Where does this obligation come from? Some higher power? It would have to in order to be an obligation, inherent to all.

Just like the cheetah has no inherent obligation to not exploit the antelope to his benefit, neither does the politician have any inherent obligation to not exploit us to his benefit.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Disinvented,)
...In actuality, civilization is an anarchy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
That's true. It does not follow that we therefore must accept the status quo and tolerate assholes trying to impose their will on us by force.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I certainly agree; you are no more obligated to tolerate transgressions against you than they are obligated to refrain from comitting such transgressions. I once saw a show (on Discovery Channel?) that showed a desperately hungry lioness attempting take a bite out of a rhino, and ending up a little bruised and bloody. A fitting lesson: sometimes the prey fight back, and sometimes predator and prey exchange roles. The secret to dealing with the stuff you mentioned is to retrain your mentality from prey (chronic victim) to predator, I suppose.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Disinvented,)
The strong and in-power exploit us, just as the weak are exploited in nature.
...I do yearn for its destruction-- Society's, the Establishment's, Civilization's--as a general threat to my security and contentment, just as I would seek the destruction of a threatening predator in nature.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
I suggest a way to do that is to help others quit supporting politicians.  I've seen several former DemocRATs, Repooplicans, and Libertarians give up their irrational belief and quit voting, and begin to resist taxes.  That is how we will abolish the belief in "government":  one person at a time.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I was such a democrat, turned Libertarian, turned "small L" (non-party) libertarian, turned anarcho-libertarian, turned "deep anarchist". The common anarchist/libertarian is so busy shouting for things to be fair, for the Man to recognize his rights, that they find my mentality to be too pacifistic. They want radical action, whereas I know already that I am free.

And I'm all for revolution, though recruiting others to one's mode of thinking is a delicate endeavor. It's like the Matrix (the first one, not those other two pseudo-religious reels of crap, excuse the lame movie reference), many people don't want to be unplugged, and most are too far gone anyway.

You should check out buildfreedom.com, this article in particular: The Anatomy of Slavespeak <http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07a.shtml>

[castille]

Would be nice if I got the right not to get arrested for murder, theft, and fraud.

[Impenitent]

rights are what you can get away with doing...

if you can do it, you have the right

if you can't, you don't

[Leopard]

pretty good descriptions of 'rights' - at least in my view

[AnonT]

I think the mistake some people here are making is the difference between "rights" and "guarantees". You have the 'right' to vote, but you're not obligated to. When arrested, you have the right to remain silent - but if you want to confess right away without a lawyer, go right ahead.

You have the right to life - or, rather, you have the right not to have your life forcefully taken away from you by someone else. If you're drowning in the middle of the ocean, your right to life doesn't mean that someone is obligated to save you. However, if someone is swinging a hammer at your head, you do have the right to not be killed by it.
Doesn't mean you won't die anyway.

You have the right to liberty - or, at least, the right to do what you want as long as it doesn't stop anyone else from doing what they want. Just because you want it doesn't mean you'll get it.

You have the right to pursue happiness - but not the guarantee that you'll ever get it. You may attempt to make yourself happier, at least in ways that don't harm others, but nobody has to try to make you happy if you're not.

[Disinvented]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
I think the mistake some people here are making is the difference between "rights" and "guarantees". You have the 'right' to vote, but you're not obligated to. When arrested, you have the right to remain silent - but if you want to confess right away without a lawyer, go right ahead.
...
You have the right to life - or, rather, you have the right not to have your life forcefully taken away from you by someone else. If you're drowning in the middle of the ocean, your right to life doesn't mean that someone is obligated to save you. However, if someone is swinging a hammer at your head, you do have the right to not be killed by it.
Doesn't mean you won't die anyway.
...
You have the right to liberty - or, at least, the right to do what you want as long as it doesn't stop anyone else from doing what they want.
...

You have the right to pursue happiness - but not the guarantee that you'll ever get it. You may attempt to make yourself happier, at least in ways that don't harm others, but nobody has to try to make you happy if you're not.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I agree with the assertion that people confuse rights with guarantees, and this always is what's happening when people claim that there are "Natural Rights." They believe that there is some guarantee, some entitlement to having these so-called natural rights observed and respected by all. This is not the case (at least in my Atheist universe without a supreme authority).

However, it seems that you commit the same error, just to a lesser extent.

You have no natural (inherent) "right not to have your life forcefully taken away from you by someone else" (regardless of the LEGAL right). In nature, animals murder animals, and the only inherent law (and I use the term figuratively and loosely) is "survival of the fit." It may be a bit more moral to respect others' right to live, and certainly more legal, but morality and law are not natural or inherent.

Without the artificial legal and social obligations of civilization, it doesn't matter if you "stop anyone else from doing what they want." No obligations exist outside of society. All rights are inventions--false obligations imposed upon the populus to insure the security and contentment of some by restricting the actions of others.