• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Human rights

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
Do they exist, and if so what are they?

I have always been uncomfortable with the idea that people are entitled to anything, both on a personal and ideological level. But there are a few things which I think help a society be stable and prosperous. So here are my musings on the subject:

1. Equality under the law between men, women and children who are members of the nation; also related to this,
2. People should have the right to a fair trial (I prefer the civil to the common law legal system, however).
3. A right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted government interference/spying.
4. Freedom to own property and defend it from others, and related to this,
5. A right to own firearms.
6. The right to work in reasonable conditions, where you choose to do so domestically.
7. National identity, sovereignty, self determination are inviolable and must be respected.


Things that I do not consider to be rights:
Voting - this should be a privilege granted to those who demonstrate sufficient understanding
Universal education, a set standard of living, welfare, etc...all inventions of the nanny state
Marriage rights, for obvious reasons
Asylum - this should be decided on a case by case basis.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Things that I do not consider to be rights: Voting.

The totalitarians of the Left and Right and the Islamists are against liberal democracy.

So the totalitarians attack voting in order delegitimise liberal democracy.

Thank God the right to vote is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Constitution of Australia, and as well, voting is compulsory in Australia so we know what the people want.
 

Mane

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
828
7. National identity, sovereignty, self determination are inviolable and must be respected.

Are you talking about existing nationalities only, or are you suggesting that we should make this into an international right for any region that wants to gain sovereignty and defect from it's existing political entity? The first is boring, so for the sake of conversation I will just assume you mean the later.

What will be the factors that should be considered? What constitutes proof of a desire to defect? Local leaders who wish too do so? A local majority of people who would vote for it? How would boarder disputes with the existing entity should be managed? If Manchester wants to become a city state, and Britain is not fond of the idea, how should the UN react to allow it to do so peacefully?
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
Are you talking about existing nationalities only, or are you suggesting that we should make this into an international right for any region that wants to gain sovereignty and defect from it's existing political entity? The first is boring, so for the sake of conversation I will just assume you mean the later.

Nationality is based on ethnicity, so yes, if an ethnic minority with historical connections to the area they live in wishes to secede I don't see why this should be blocked. As allowing an ethnic group political control of the land they have historical connection to logically prohibits mass immigration like we have today, it doesn't surprise me that there is so much opposition to the idea being applied in Western countries.

What will be the factors that should be considered? What constitutes proof of a desire to defect? Local leaders who wish too do so? A local majority of people who would vote for it? How would boarder disputes with the existing entity should be managed? If Manchester wants to become a city state, and Britain is not fond of the idea, how should the UN react to allow it to do so peacefully?

Manchester wouldn't qualify under the criteria I mentioned as it is an English city. As for what qualifies, any group with enough determination and power to take control and form an independent state. I am cynical about whether referenda can solve political issues in a satisfactory way, the idea of 51% of the population being able to override 49% regardless of anything - democracy - has never appealed to me.

I am very uncomfortable with permanent international political organizations, the UN included. In a situation of conflict, neighbouring countries should set up a temporary board to help stabilise the process. It is not the job of a distant power to dictate borders, Britain did a terrible job at that earlier in the century and I would have hoped (maybe naively) that this would be a lesson.
 

Mane

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
828
Nationality is based on ethnicity, so yes, if an ethnic minority with historical connections to the area they live in wishes to secede, then this should not be opposed (eg Scottish, Basque people).



Manchester wouldn't qualify under the criteria I mentioned as it is an English city. As for what qualifies, any group with enough determination and power to take control and form an independent state. I am cynical about whether referenda can solve political issues in a satisfactory way, the idea of 51% of the population being able to override 49% regardless of anything - democracy - has never appealed to me.

I am very uncomfortable with permanent international political organizations, the UN included. In a situation of conflict, neighbouring countries should set up a temporary board to help stabilise the process. It is not the job of a distant power to dictate borders, Britain did a terrible job at that earlier in the century and I would have hoped (maybe naively) that this would be a lesson.

So you didn't mean a right arbitrated or given by anyone, just a general moral right to rebel and take over your local region? Essentially no impact whatsoever other then you considering it moral...

For a moment it looked like you were onto something interesting. This turned boring fast :dry:
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
So you didn't mean a right arbitrated or given by anyone, just a general moral right to rebel and take over your local region? Essentially no impact whatsoever other then you considering it moral...

For a moment it looked like you were onto something interesting. This turned boring fast :dry:

People rarely vote their way into secession, it requires force to break out. I am just being pragmatic, something that seems to go over the head of many on here.

I am pretty sure where this thread is going to go now so will retire unless/until I am proven wrong.
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I don't believe in a right to life.

That is sad.

Compared to those five, the ones you posted in the OP seem trivial to me - and the last one downright tyrannical. A state who demands respect but provides none back to its citizens, nor cares about their most basic needs? I'll pass.
 

Mane

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
828
People rarely vote their way into secession, it requires force to break out. I am just being pragmatic, something that seems to go over the head of many on here.
And now your fighting for the right to redefine pragmatism? I suppose at least that would have some sort of meaning.

Anyway, I think the notion of an international right to sovereignty is an interesting one, and in sharp contrast to this thread, is worth looking into.
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
That is sad.

Compared to those five, the ones you posted in the OP seem trivial to me - and the last one downright tyrannical. A state who demands respect but provides none back to its citizens, nor cares about their most basic needs? I'll pass.

I am not talking about the state, but the collective right of an ethnic group to have their own living space and define their own way of life. Where that place should be has historically often been the problem. At present, the international community denies that most Europoid ethnic groups have a right to national identity at all while simultaneously supporting the idea in other parts of the world. I know why, but that's a separate discussion irrelevant to this thread.

I don't believe everybody has a right to life; criminals such as murders and rapists, as well as serious white-collar criminals, do not deserve it. Bring back public executions for these scum. I would also argue that people who live with serious diseases, and who have a poor quality of life, probably wish that they weren't born in the first place.

Besides, it isn't far from saying you have a right to certain conditions to insisting that you have a right to live wherever you want, and to taxpayer-funded social welfare and healthcare. Who is going to create these conditions you talk about if they aren't met in the country you live in?
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
:thinking: Considering the mass migrations all throughout history, those claims becomes incredibly hard to substantiate, tbh. One part of my ancestors likely started out somewhere near Siberia, travelled all the way up to Sweden and Norway to settle there, then rape, pillage, plunder and settle down in the place that I grew up in. Another part of my ancestors are from the center of Europe - at least, as far as we can track 'em. Then there's the Romans and their influence in the part where I grew up back when.

At what point do you stop going back in time?

For that matter, migration seems to be normal and natural to the human species and re-mixes those ethnic groups all the time. Granted, it gives issues during the transition phases, I won't deny that.

As for your second part - those criminals still deserve to be free of suffering though, though losing their freedom in exchange for the safety of others seems only fair. I could be swayed towards humane execution in some cases, I suppose, as well as euthanasia to keep people - others and themselves - from harm. Those five needs are to prevent suffering and eventually death from setting in. And I do believe every living being has a right to live free of suffering or choose to die to end suffering.
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
:thinking: Considering the mass migrations all throughout history, those claims becomes incredibly hard to substantiate, tbh. One part of my ancestors likely started out somewhere near Siberia, travelled all the way up to Sweden and Norway to settle there, then rape, pillage, plunder and settle down in the place that I grew up in. Another part of my ancestors are from the center of Europe - at least, as far as we can track 'em. Then there's the Romans and their influence in the part where I grew up back when.

Never in history has there been immigration on the scale of millions within a time span of decades, and never has that immigration almost entirely consisted of people of different racial groups.

Seeing this has turned (predictably) from an abstract discussion about rights into a defense of immigration, I should point out that in past ages, people have always defended their country from invasion; never supported it and made those among them who remain loyal social pariahs. There is no precedent for what you support. There is no advantage for you supporting such immigration anyway. Brought to its logical conclusion, the institution of a new majority group (Pakistani presumably) and the imposition of their culture, you'd lose many of the privileges you take for granted today. I doubt this will change such views because they aren't held for rational reasons. But unfortunately I care enough to try.

For that matter, migration seems to be normal and natural to the human species and re-mixes those ethnic groups all the time. Granted, it gives issues during the transition phases, I won't deny that.

See above.

As for your second part - those criminals still deserve to be free of suffering though, though losing their freedom in exchange for the safety of others seems only fair. I could be swayed towards humane execution in some cases, I suppose, as well as euthanasia to keep people - others and themselves - from harm. Those five needs are to prevent suffering and eventually death from setting in. And I do believe every living being has a right to live free of suffering or choose to die to end suffering.

Your rights don't supervene mine, and those who abuse others should be firmly punished to set an example and prevent such behaviour from occurring in the future. The most severe of crimes need to be dealt with in such a way that installs fear in the hearts of those thinking of doing the same. I don't feel that comfortable with the death penalty personally, but can recognize that there are some people who are too dangerous to keep alive.

Death is a natural part of life. I have stared death in the face already many times in my life and sometimes wonder whether life is worth living. I mainly continue on because committing suicide requires a degree of courage that I admit I don't possess, and there are some things that I still wish to do first, like have a child and write some music.
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I didn't defend immigration though, just pointed out that it tends to be a part of life. My comment was geared towards your comments wrt the claims on land based on ethnicity as it is impractical to execute. Im personally pro regularised integration and assimilation, as much as that is possible, since this is an issue that is unavoidable, history teaches us. Might as well channel it in the least harmful way.

I have no problem with death as that too is part of life - it's pointless suffering I vehemently oppose. The death penalty is severe though, especially with the risk of being 'wrong' about the crime someone committed in the mix.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
I think it's an interesting question. Whether rights "exist" or not. I mean, rights are not object existing in the physical/corporeal world. Nevertheless, there are documents that purportedly say that people living in particular societies have them.

For instance, the First Amendment to The U.S. Constitution states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

So this is something, that through a process encoded in the U.S. Constitution became amended to it, that in some sense states a "right". The right itself, however, still does not exist as an object in physical or corporeal form. Nevertheless, there are people who will fight for it. People who will want it enforced. People who will complain when they believe it is violated.

There will, in addition, be people who will say that this is not a right, or claim the right is not being violated. This "right" is now concept that is codified and can be argued about. Concepts, by their very nature, are fuzzy, not matter how sharp we try to make them.

Besides that, I think it is only a question of whether or not we support other people who fight for certain things. Rights don't exist in physical or corporeal form.

In that sense, I will give support to people who fight for people to be given the chance to vote in elections. I will support people who want to have water to drink. I will support people who want to assemble to meet their own aims. All these things, are contingent on a case-by-case basis, but it would take extreme circumstances for me to not support people in these situations.
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
I am uninterested in the metaphysical nature of rights - they are abstract ideas (much like half the things we talk about on the forum) made objective by peoples' actions. But so what. Brooding over such a thing is pointless mental masturbation.

What I am interested in is peoples' take on which (if any) rights people should have and their reasons for thinking this. When I ask "do rights exist", I mean "is there anything that you are entitled to just for existing?", not "what is a right?". The former is a much less closed and more practical question, and can be expanded outward to other issues very easily (as has already happened).
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I don't know that I believe in intrinsic philosophical rights, but I do believe that if we want the best society and government we can create, it would protect for each individual unless willingly forfeited:

Access to basic resources: safe water, healthy food, clean air.
Land and shelter.
Freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, petition.
Basic income and retirement stipend upon reaching a certain age.
Universal healthcare.
Democratic input via voting and legal appeal.
Timely and fair trial by peers.
Protection from violence, thievery, and oppression.
Privacy and protection from both government and corporate entities.
Free education.
Safe working conditions.

I think an important component of this which is a bit "silent" would be protection of individuals from capitalistic mega-entities via caps on what amount of resources can be amassed by individual people and organizations. People who are born into wealth did nothing to earn it and corporations who earn it only realistically benefit from so much. IMO it is a crime to hoard resources while others are starving despite working hard to make it otherwise.
 

ginniebean

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2014
Messages
29
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
All rights by definition are philosophical and often ideological. The libertarian ideology uses words like inviolable and inalienable as vehemence in assertion but such vehemence doesn't make these philosophical notions any more solid than an opposing ones.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
I agree with [MENTION=22061]ginniebean[/MENTION] and I'm a libertarian, but it's not the vehemence in assertion that makes the notion of inalienable rights "solid"; it's the evidence from practicing these principles and the tremendous success of the USA that makes such principles "solid". As they say, the proof of the pudding is in its eating thereof.
 
Top