What are your rights? (2 Viewers)

[Graney]

I've been considering the concept of rights.

What do you consider your rights, why do you have them, and under what authority?

One kind of rights are the rights governments make that are set out in law, and we have international law regarding rights, as set out in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[youtube]hTlrSYbCbHE[/youtube]

Rights set out by the government or even the UN, are arbitrarily determined, and only exist because of the consent of the majority of people. There is no reason we should respect the action of government as inherently right, and that any of these supposed 'rights' should be given respect.

What I'm interested in though, is whether there exists a standard of human rights, seperate and independent from popular law?

Or is it the case that, rights are whatever the majority determine? If the majority were in favor of cruel or absurd policy, it becomes a right?

Is it enough to say that because something is better, it should be considered a right?

Ran Prieur says that the current concept of rights are part of the depriving system, and the notion of rights mandated by government are part of, and enforces, an inherently unequal society.

I disagree with the idea of "rights," at least when it means something guaranteed by the state or dispensed by some program. This is a crutch in the worst sense. Rights work against the true interests of the deprived classes by making them depend on the state, an authoritarian structure that uses threats to force people to grudgingly go through the motions of treating each other decently, and that channels these motions through isolating and nightmarish bureaucracies. Or it makes them depend on charity, which reinforces feelings of superiority and inferiority. This is true whether the right is for something like money or something like freedom. Programs that transfer money from the rich to the poor never transfer enough, they make the rich despise the poor, and they make it possible for a system that generates inequality to keep going. The right to free speech is always overruled when speech actually threatens the system, and it leads to disconnected and utterly powerless dissent, where people cop out and say "I despise what you say but I support your right to say it," instead of actually listening to each other. Imagine if, instead of saying "We have a right to be given what we need," we said "We have the power to go and take it!" Or better yet, we have the power to create a society where we don't have all these needs in the first place.

...

A right is always a privilege, if "right" means something that has to be dispensed by some program, and "privilege" means something scarce and supposedly good that's tied into a depriving system. A right is just a privilege that well-meaning shallow-sighted people try to give to everyone. But if we define a "right" as something that's implicit in the basic structure of society, so that everyone has it without anyone making any effort -- clean water because there are no poisons, freedom because there's no authority, equality because there are no means to concentrate wealth or power -- then that's really the opposite of the other kind of "right," and we wouldn't ever have a reason to declare it a right.

Against Rights

Thoughts?

 

[zazzy1234]

http://ranprieur.com/essays/rights.html
the thing was to long to read

well i believe a right is for someone to practice their religon coz it ain't doing any harm to anyone. the right to education coz everyone should be educated. and the right to be u as long u are not hurting anyone:blah:

 

[hermand]

i think that, in the past, rights have been set by the majority, however, now there are laws etc, they're adhered to because they're the accepted norm, which isn't to say they're necessarily right. also, people now know the 'right' way to treat others, and that everyone should be entitled to be in control of their own destiny, whatever you want to call it, and that people should be given freedom, because it's been proven over time. equality, choice and freedom is the only way a fair and just society can operate, and people these days are aware of that, obviously with the exceptions of fundamentalist religions, dictatorships, terrorism, etc.

But if we define a "right" as something that's implicit in the basic structure of society, so that everyone has it without anyone making any effort -- clean water because there are no poisons, freedom because there's no authority, equality because there are no means to concentrate wealth or power -- then that's really the opposite of the other kind of "right," and we wouldn't ever have a reason to declare it a right.

i like this. it makes sense and i agree, rights should be things that we don't have to declare as a right, as it should be inherently known within society that people deserve these things.

however, in the world today, everything has to be formal so people can't be exploited by the millions of systems we have running this joint.

zazzy, that's not what he is asking at all. please for the love of god keep your trolling to non-serious discussions?

 

[Graney]

however, in the world today, everything has to be formal so people can't be exploited by the millions of systems we have running this joint.

I guess the problem with contemporary rights is they're tied to government and power. When people talk about rights, it is usually in the context of expecting or demanding something be provided for them by the government. This leaves people feeling individually alienated, powerless and dependent on the state.

It would be better if 'rights' were spoken of and used in an empowering sense, rather than demanding something of the government, 'rights' being a concept of desirable conditions all men have the ability to actively seize and create in the world.

 

[Azarnakumar]

the thing was to long to read

well i believe a right is for someone to practice their religon coz it ain't doing any harm to anyone. the right to education coz everyone should be educated. and the right to be u as long u are not hurting anyone:blah:

yeah what about when doing things in the name of religion, terrorism for example, does hurt other people?

 

[spyro14]

yeah what about when doing things in the name of religion, terrorism for example, does hurt other people?

There should be a univeral understanding, an unsaid law, that when a terrorist needs his head cut off everyone looks away.

 

[Azarnakumar]

what about religious policies such as catholics opposing abortion etc

 

[spyro14]

what about religious policies such as catholics opposing abortion etc

Not only Catholics oppose abortion and even if they were, as if you can't see the reason.

 

[Azarnakumar]

in relation to religious freedom being a right

 

[spyro14]

in relation to religious freedom being a right

When I rule the world I will be sure to tell you all which Religion(s) I tolerate. At the moment the only one is Spyrologyism.

 

[Azarnakumar]

you're an idiot who is completely missing the point, please stop posting

 

[spyro14]

you're an idiot who is completely missing the point, please stop posting

You know what random stranger, in this topic i've seen you asking questions but where are your answers.

 

[Azarnakumar]

im not the one encouraging religious freedom am i you halfwit

 

[spyro14]

Religious freedom isnt always a bad thing.

 

[spyro14]

By the way, once again you have wasted my time without saying anything.

 

[Azarnakumar]

why do i always get banned but retards like this who just troll and spam never do

no one is asking me questions you gimp
i am asking them because i was wondering what peoples thoughts were on religious freedom in relation to our rights why is this so hard to understand you loser

 

[spyro14]

This post is dedicated to thanking aza for his negative reputation, You really are a massive dickhead.

 

[KFunk]

Ran Prieur says that the current concept of rights are part of the depriving system, and the notion of rights mandated by government are part of, and enforces, an inherently unequal society.

Ran seems to have missed the dinstinction (sketchy though it may sometimes be) between positive and negative liberties (/rights). Even reading his essay as a polemic against positive rights it comes off as a rant. More than that, I find it hard to take him seriously: e.g. "Being out of balance is what makes a person sick, and our whole society is out of balance" (what of the clear statistical differential in infectious disease rates between the rich and poor and similar?)

He simply takes each 'right to X' and talks about how X is actually misguided or is the source of some social pathology with barely any mention of the concept of rights per se. While I am sympathetic to his disillusionment and sense of alienation, his arguments are rubbish.

 

[Iron]

All human rights flow from the fact that we are made in God's image. Everything else is bullshyet

 

[zazzy1234]

yeah what about when doing things in the name of religion, terrorism for example, does hurt other people?

u r an idiot, doing terrisim is not in the name of ISLAM performing such activities r done by idiots who deserve to go to a mental institute and it's against islam to kill innocent people for no heck of a reson. It's against islam to kill at all.