Do "rights" really exist or are they imaginary?

[Feenix566]

I think you are asking the wrong question. If rights are self-evident and exist, then why do some countries have more rights then others, freer then others. If rights do exist then wouldn't it be impossible to break them. If rights exist shouldn't everyone know there rights? I would have to agree with Carlin, rights are imaginary. Also, if you do not fight for your rights you wont have any, if you do then you will. These days rights are slowly becoming extinct.

Just because some countries choose to ignore rights, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Natural law is everywhere. It is unavoidable.

Some automobile designers account for the fact that parts degrade over time. Some do not. This doesn't mean the law of automobile part degredation doesn't exist for those who choose to ignore it. What it means is that cars designed by people who don't account for part degredation will be less reliable than those created by designers who accept it.

Likewise, societies created by people who choose to ignore natural rights will be less prosperous than societies created by people who accept them.

 

[mczerone]

Rights do exist.

If you and I were living on an island, and you kill me, you've missed out on the opportunity to cooperate and trade with me. Consequently, your lifestyle will be worse than it would be had you not killed me.

On the other hand, if we were living on an island, and I was stealing from you, and you killed me, your lifestyle would be better than it would have been had you not killed me.

In both cases, you would face the natural consequences of your actions. These two hypothetical scenarios give us a wealth of insight into the true nature of morality.

To tear apart your model: If the two of us were competing for resources on the island, and I kill you, I have gained the use of all of you resources. So even without you having been infringing on my rights, I am in a better position with you being dead.

The whole "better position" fallacy was put to bed with Nozick, IIRC


Rights are "imaginary": they are a construct of the rational mind, as applied to the real world.

That doesn't mean that they are arbitrary or subjective, only that they do not exist separate from the rational mind.

Rights are an extension of the axiomatic underpinnings from Descartes and Kant, through Mises to Rothbard, that (1) "I" exist, and have rationality (whether I use it or not), (2) people have bodies that they can control through the use of their reason, (3) other people exist with what must be assumed to be equal rights to gain possession of unowned material (property) and use their own bodies how they see fit.

From those 3 undeniable propositions, we see the framework of "rights": To use your body (or property) in any way you want, limited only by the rights of others to use their body (or property).

To extend those "rights" to things such as "free speech", "Secure households", "Bearing Arms", and a "right against government taking" really is just an application of personal and property rights that arises naturally from reason alone. As codified in the Constitution, they are (intended to be) limits on the powers of the state, recognizing that personal rights are more just than the whim of whoever claims that power has been bestowed to them.

So are rights imaginary? Yes. They are. There is no existence separate from the internal workings of our minds, but they cannot be rationally denied by the mind, only skirted by those who elevate themselves above the humanness of those whose rights they violate ("3/5ths of a person", "terrorist", "illegals"). The only way to rationally violate the rights of another human is to dehumanize them, and that just another task that the state is all too familiar with and comfortable using.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If rights are imaginary then what becomes of the "legitimate" ( so called ) PURPOSE for government?

POOF!

lol

 

[Truth Warrior]

I think you are asking the wrong question. If rights are self-evident and exist, then why do some countries have more rights then others, freer then others. If rights do exist then wouldn't it be impossible to break them. If rights exist shouldn't everyone know there rights? I would have to agree with Carlin, rights are imaginary. Also, if you do not fight for your rights you wont have any, if you do then you will. These days rights are slowly becoming extinct.

I think YOU are asking the wrong question. Rights do NOT originate from governments. They just call them rights, ONLY to confuse, con and suck you into willingly participate in their scams.<IMHO>

"It's tough to fight an enemy that maintains an outpost in your mind."

 

[heavenlyboy34]

i think you are asking the wrong question. Rights do not originate from governments. They just call them that, only to suck you in.<imho>

+1776

 

[pcosmar]

We hold these truths to be self-evident

self-evident

If you don't,,,GTFO

 

[LibertyEagle]

I hate to say it, but I agree with TW's last post. Our rights do not come from government; even our Founders told us that. That is why they used the term, "inalienable". We own our own rights; they are not given by government. That's important to understand, because if you believe they come from government, you are buying into the pretense that government can take them away. That's one of the huge differences between the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter.

The intent of our government was to protect our liberty; not grant it.

Note: I think it was Jefferson who was concerned about including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, because he was concerned that it would be misconstrued that these were our only rights. That is one of the reasons for the 10th Amendment; to make sure that it was known that these were not our only rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as “the foundation of the Constitution” and added, “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” Jefferson's formulation of this doctrine of “strict construction” was echoed by champions of state sovereignty for many decades.

http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

A natural right is that which is politically bipartisan in every human being

I think Carlin hit it right on the nail and said what I've been thinking for a while. Only he is a lot more eloquent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E#t=4m10s

There is a difference between a civil right and a natural right and I've already explained this dozens of times. A civil right is a human right and it is something on the level of social sciences.
On the other hand, a natural right is self-evident and unalienably true. It originated by narrowing down evidence politically through the use of natural law. Because there existed no such thing as the social sciences during he time of John Locke, the natural rights had to literally exist on the physical level where they were imprinted indelibly like DnA on the souls of every human being.

 

[BillyDkid]

I understand what George is saying, but the entire premise of this country is that we do have rights. Those rights may be disregarded or infringed on, but that doesn't mean we don't rightfully have them. The other side of that coin is to say that if we don't have rights it means that other people somehow have rights over us, which is certainly less defensible. The reality is, whoever has the power can control others. The country was founded on the idea that this won't be true in this country. Unfortunately, that has not been how it has played out. The government has the power to take away all our rights if it chooses to just like it did with Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. The fundamental premise for the formation of this country is that we unalienable rights granted to us by our "creator" (whatever that may mean to you). Sadly, too many people choose to believe we get our rights from our rulers or from the will of the mob.

 

[Feenix566]

To tear apart your model: If the two of us were competing for resources on the island, and I kill you, I have gained the use of all of you resources. So even without you having been infringing on my rights, I am in a better position with you being dead.

You're assuming that there aren't enough resources on the island to feed both of us. That assumption is almost never true in real life. Resource harvesting takes work. In almost all cases, we can harvest twice as many resources by working twice as hard.

In the rare instance in which there aren't enough resources available for both of us to sustain our existence, then you certainly could argue that it would be morally acceptable to kill me. When someone is faced with the decision of kill or be killed, it's pretty much universally accepted that killing is morally permissable.

So are rights imaginary? Yes. They are. There is no existence separate from the internal workings of our minds, but they cannot be rationally denied by the mind, only skirted by those who elevate themselves above the humanness of those whose rights they violate ("3/5ths of a person", "terrorist", "illegals"). The only way to rationally violate the rights of another human is to dehumanize them, and that just another task that the state is all too familiar with and comfortable using.

You're contradicting yourself. The word "imaginary" implies that the concept only exists within your brain, as opposed to being something that you're observing about the world around you. If a right cannot be rationally denied, than it exists outside the human consciousness.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

This is not a problem for me. I claim my rights as a child of God. Honestly, I think humanism was the beginning of the end where liberty is concerned. Its funny how we have come full circle. First, the elites claimed divine right by keeping the serfs ignorant and frightened of God. When man got brave enough to believe that he could maintain his own link to God, liberty flourished. Then of course, the elites had to destroy God to reclaim their supremacy. If we worship the group, then the leaders are again effectively God.

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

Sure, try to infringe upon those rights and see what this glock does to you.
If you walk into a wall and you hit it... you know it is there.
When you try to walk on my rights, and I hit you... you know where that line is...
Thus, my willingness to define and defend my soveriengty, creates it.

Exactly my point. If you choose not to defend your rights (individually or as a society) then they cease to exist.

A right is a concept. Without human thought and action, it does not affect you.

On another tangent, take our right of freedom of religion. We must have made that up because God demands we worship him or face punishment. That's not freedom of religion. So how can we say our rights come from God if one of our most basic rights is in direct opposition to his word?

 

[torchbearer]

Exactly my point. If you choose not to defend your rights (individually or as a society) then they cease to exist.

A right is a concept. Without human thought and action, it does not affect you.

On another tangent, take our right of freedom of religion. We must have made that up because God demands we worship him or face punishment. That's not freedom of religion. So how can we say our rights come from God if one of our most basic rights is in direct opposition to his word?

The rights are still there, just not enforced.
A slave is still human, and still has potential of sovereignty.
BUt that potential doesn't become kinetic until the slave rises up and claims them.
Thus, the right was always there... but isn't realized until you claim it. (just because you didn't know about that extra bank account with a million dollars in it, doesn't mean it didn't exist)
I was giving a tangible. You can use empirical data to point to the evidence of rights existing.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

Exactly my point. If you choose not to defend your rights (individually or as a society) then they cease to exist.

A right is a concept. Without human thought and action, it does not affect you.

On another tangent, take our right of freedom of religion. We must have made that up because God demands we worship him or face punishment. That's not freedom of religion. So how can we say our rights come from God if one of our most basic rights is in direct opposition to his word?

That depends on your definition of God. Mine certainly doesnt include punishment for failure to worship him. That would kind of kill the whole point of free will, wouldnt it?

 

[Feenix566]

I don't think there's a conflict between the religious view of rights and the secular view. If we agree that rights exist as an observable part of reality, saying that rights come from God is just like saying that gravity comes from God. They're both observable parts of nature.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I hate to say it, but I agree with TW's last post. Our rights do not come from government; even our Founders told us that. That is why they used the term, "inalienable". We own our own rights; they are not given by government. That's important to understand, because if you believe they come from government, you are buying into the pretense that government can take them away. That's one of the huge differences between the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter.

The intent of our government was to protect our liberty; not grant it.

Note: I think it was Jefferson who was concerned about including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, because he was concerned that it would be misconstrued that these were our only rights. That is one of the reasons for the 10th Amendment; to make sure that it was known that these were not our only rights.

"Unalienable" means that a self-evident truth can't be misinterpreted or misunderstood because it reduces down to become indelibly imprinted, bipartisanly, on every human soul. So, a king's soul understands that which is self-evident and unalienable. No waffling on the matter because of a legal precedent technicality. If his soul doesn't understand, then he is deemed not a king ordained with God's sovereign authority on earth but a tyrant.

 

[mczerone]

You're assuming that there aren't enough resources on the island to feed both of us. That assumption is almost never true in real life. Resource harvesting takes work. In almost all cases, we can harvest twice as many resources by working twice as hard.

In the rare instance in which there aren't enough resources available for both of us to sustain our existence, then you certainly could argue that it would be morally acceptable to kill me. When someone is faced with the decision of kill or be killed, it's pretty much universally accepted that killing is morally permissable.



You're contradicting yourself. The word "imaginary" implies that the concept only exists within your brain, as opposed to being something that you're observing about the world around you. If a right cannot be rationally denied, than it exists outside the human consciousness.

Thanks for the response.

In the island scenario - all that I was saying was that "rights" are not derived from a hypothetical situation where you would or would not be better off by taking some action.

To point out that I was not being contradictory: Does your consciousness exist, or is it imaginary? Certainly you cannot deny it, so by your deduction your consciousness then exists. However, does it exist outside of your consciousness?

There is a rather deep philosophical underpinning to this debate, that questions the nature of "reality".

Here we have come up with a couple of "things" that certainly do not exist without your consciousness (so it would be expected that they are imaginary), but yet they cannot be logically denied. Just because something is imaginary doesn't mean that it cannot have effects in the actions of men. Santa Clause, though being imaginary, can yet foster a sense of giving and good will in men. The modern vision of Jesus, which cannot be historically correct in its entirety, is at least partially imaginary - yet it fosters a great cooperative spirit.

Rights are imaginary, and they are only respected by other human beings if they also have accepted (1) that rights should be applicable and (2) that you have as many rights as they do.

Without this mutual acceptance of what "rights" are, they may as well be imaginary, especially if the person denying them has more power than the person asserting them.

That my right to my own body is self-evident and rationally undeniable doesn't make it a corporeal, physical, piece of paper that can be presented to any person or government that seeks to trample that right. It is only through a mutual understanding that I have the power to assert any particular right so that the other person doesn't infringe upon me. And just because they do infringe doesn't deny that the right exists.

In a Crusoe World with one other person, both people have rights. Whether one kills the other or trades with him has no bearing on what their Rights are. The actions of one person may infringe on or align with the other's rights, and those actions that infringe on another's rights are those that are contradictory to the nature of the actor. Whether it would be economically beneficial or not, to kill the other man on the island is outside the rights of the actor because it implies either that he is ready and willing to have his life taken or is not the "same level" of "human" as the other man - a contradiction either way.

Rights are imaginary (a construct of the mind alone) - but that in no way means that we cannot assert our own or stand up for the rights of others in the face of oppression.

 

[mczerone]

I don't think there's a conflict between the religious view of rights and the secular view. If we agree that rights exist as an observable part of reality, saying that rights come from God is just like saying that gravity comes from God. They're both observable parts of nature.

How can you observe my Right to own my own body? Or my Right to plant whatever seeds I would like in my garden?

If you could observe a right, you could measure it - at least booleanly - and if you could measure rights, then you could compare them between people. Does everyone have equal rights? Do some people or groups have more or less than you or I? Well, I think we must agree that "rights" are equally bestowed upon all, and therefore can only be observed as being "present" or "absent" for each right. Does that then mean if we cannot observe someone's "right", that he doesn't have it?

 

[diggronpaul]

Can you provide evidence without using faith or god?

John Locke create a construct that for the first time in the history of humankind man experienced liberty. The construct leveraged the concept of a higher power, so that another man simply could not take away ones liberty by decree.

These are simply systems of thought. If you can develop a better one, than go right ahead, as you are still currently free to think (if you dare).

But, what I'm concerned is happening in this thread is an attack on the current construct that our nation was built upon. And without a replacement construct that maintains our liberties, humans will end-up being nothing more than protoplasm who struggle for privileges under the oppression of incredibly wealthy oligarchs.