Philosophy of Rights

[luke23]

I beg to differ. The concept of Rights being endowed is a societal staple, maybe...but it is ALSO a natural set of laws, in which the person must look to itself for protection of its life, against whatever befalls it; therefore the right to life, the right to defend, the right to being happy, the right to assemble with like-minded/like kind, the right to exercise beliefs...can be considered natural rights, much like animals have the natural rights to their lives, if they are able....that predators will eat them, or natural sickness will take them..it is the same for humans.

I think you're reading too much into nature there. Let me draw on Hobbes, because I like Hobbes.

Hobbes says in the state of nature you essentially have unlimited rights based on a simple premise. You can do whatever you can get away with. So if you are strong, you can use your strength to dominate others. If you are weak, you're out of luck. So in the presence of 'all' rights, it quickly becomes 'no' rights.

From that perspective then, I think society is how we carve away the rights that harm others, and preserve the rights that benefit all individuals.

Chalk it up to a Calvinist upbringing, but I consider the state of nature itself to be clearly "Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." As social creatures, I think it's our nature to combat that.

 

[CamoDeafie]

there are herds of animals. groups of animals, look to the primates for a good example of social creatures in nature...again, maybe it is taught, maybe it is nature, but I am of the opinion that the rights we have now, must be defended against abuse and usurpation.

 

[luke23]

That's where we have a major grey area. When we say a state of nature, what do we mean? Do we mean removing government, or do we mean removing society? Personally I believe the two cannot be differentiated. Even animals have their own societies. But if that society was gone... Then what?

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

So you think that if all societal laws, controls, and policing were abandoned, this would be maintained?

Personally I don't believe in natural rights. I believe rights are bestowed by society via the social contract. I subscribe to Hobbes' state of nature over Locke's. Life would be nasty, brutal, and short; simply because in nature the only right is conferred by power. The strong can prey on the weak with impunity as long as the framework is just individuals.

Society is created because that nature is so horrible, and to provide protection and justice.

Sometimes I wish it was that way (natural law)
Today, The weak pass laws that protect only them and darn near chastise the strong for defending or thinking for themselves (naturally).

Our current laws protect the slimy, spineless and silver tongued.

Darwinism NEEDS to take its course when it comes to this.. Sadly science and social law protect those who should have perished long ago. Essentially dragging the whole system down.. This is why our country is crumbling.

 

[chariot13]

That's where we have a major grey area. When we say a state of nature, what do we mean? Do we mean removing government, or do we mean removing society? Personally I believe the two cannot be differentiated. Even animals have their own societies. But if that society was gone... Then what?

You might want to shed some light on the rest of the posters on how you claim to be a communist. It may help with people understanding why you think government and society are at the pinnacle of necessity. Anyways, the individual can and did survive without government and without society at the beginning. Its certainly no harder to survive today than it was in the beginning. These things you despise (individuals), are what make up the groups of people in your belief system of societies and governments. I personally believe only in the individual. Not any society and not any government. When you compare value between the individual and society or government, the only one that has any value and can stand on its own, is the individual. You can not have society or government without the individual. Yep, those horrible things you like to gather together and claim as a new 'individual' body and refer to as 'the people'. There has never and there never will be a society or government that will or can survive without the individual. Its like how someone says 'I'll take what you say as a grain of salt'. Go ahead. Take away that grain of salt and do it every time someone says or does something you don't like in life. Let me know what you end up with...

 

[Blitzkrieg]

You're welcome sir. I appreciate your responses, I feel confidence in your knowledge. Salted Weapon also had a good response.

For me, I feel like a lot of the Enlightenment thinkers were a bit naive and idealistic, and expect more order than there actually is. In a world full of genocides, tyrannies, murders, hunger, inequality, etc I think we have to reevaluate the ideas that there are fundamental natural frameworks. For me, saying there are no natural rights isn't any attempt to say no one should have rights. It's just an emphasis on why rights are such a vitally important part of society. They guarantee us something special we couldn't otherwise rely on.

I believe you are confusing natural rights with those who violate those rights

We have avowed communists on this board. Communism is one of the violators and cannot be tolerated

 

[luke23]

You might want to shed some light on the rest of the posters on how you claim to be a communist. It may help with people understanding why you think government and society are at the pinnacle of necessity. Anyways, the individual can and did survive without government and without society at the beginning. Its certainly no harder to survive today than it was in the beginning. These things you despise (individuals), are what make up the groups of people in your belief system of societies and governments. I personally believe only in the individual. Not any society and not any government. When you compare value between the individual and society or government, the only one that has any value and can stand on its own, is the individual. You can not have society or government without the individual. Yep, those horrible things you like to gather together and claim as a new 'individual' body and refer to as 'the people'. There has never and there never will be a society or government that will or can survive without the individual. Its like how someone says 'I'll take what you say as a grain of salt'. Go ahead. Take away that grain of salt and do it every time someone says or does something you don't like in life. Let me know what you end up with...

I don't think it's necessary to tout politics here. I made this to discuss philosophy, and just philosophy. If someone has questions about my politics, they can message me.

 

[luke23]

Nicely said, I am not sure about the guys political affiliation but I agree with you as well.
I was not aware though that was the direction of the questioning.

But there would be little or no growth without individualism in a society. I can imagine no lights, no fuel, no steel if individuals
not a government but people did this. It takes a modern "free" people to have this growth. Once a people started defending their rights to be free, there was a technological explosion. for 1000+ years man was about the same technology wide, kings rules the world and technology stagnated except for the rebels or witches they were called. Even Galileo was a rebel and outcast. If we are talking can a people grow and prosper individually, history shows thats exactly how it works. A controlled government stagnates growth that too is proved. Its very odd how the more our own government controls what we do and how we do it we grow less and prosper less. There are more control by the governemnt now in all areas of our lives and we are at the worst state in USA history this is not a fluke as history a 1000 years old shows leader leader people grow a society not the other way around.

History is very subjective. I liked your last comment a lot, about how humans will adapt to whatever society is possible. But there's another human tendency. To look at the present as somehow the worst or the best ever. It's tempting to do, but it's almost always wildly inaccurate.

Today things aren't fantastic, but we have some general confidence that we can afford most of what we need, we can travel where we want, we can count that our food and medicine are safe to consume. If we flash back to the later 1800s, that all goes away. From an objective historical perspective, the Gilded Age was the low point of US history.

As to individualism, all things in moderation. It's good to be your own person, but it's also important to remember there are people next to you, people you need to exist with in society. I think if we start viewing individuals as purely expendable it's as much of a problem as if the individual views other people as expendable.

The big problem with politics is that it's perennially just trying to fit a square block into a round hole by hitting harder. Nobody will match up perfectly, so you have to prioritize.

 

[U201491]

This can be summed up in a nutshell.
What it all boils down to is the only rights you have are granted by each person that you come in proximity to wants to allow you to have. If one of them does not have the morality to let you continue to enjoy your perceived rights, can end all of them in a microsecond.
It really sums up to that simple fact.
It is also something the left does all possible things to destroy.
Liberalism will be a fatal disease.

 

[Dunerunner]

I like to reflect on these words....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Those amazing founders.. they were just men like we but divinely inspired

 

[saxon]

I think you're reading too much into nature there. Let me draw on Hobbes, because I like Hobbes.

Hobbes says in the state of nature you essentially have unlimited rights based on a simple premise. You can do whatever you can get away with. So if you are strong, you can use your strength to dominate others. If you are weak, you're out of luck. So in the presence of 'all' rights, it quickly becomes 'no' rights.

From that perspective then, I think society is how we carve away the rights that harm others, and preserve the rights that benefit all individuals.

Chalk it up to a Calvinist upbringing, but I consider the state of nature itself to be clearly "Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." As social creatures, I think it's our nature to combat that.

since you like hobbes so much
explain how one group can say "X" is good, yeat another group can say "X" is wrong who then is right? if society gets to dictate what is a right and what is not, then explain how what was once wrong is now right, and waht was once right is now viewed as wrong.

 

[luke23]

since you like hobbes so much
explain how one group can say "X" is good, yeat another group can say "X" is wrong who then is right? if society gets to dictate what is a right and what is not, then explain how what was once wrong is now right, and waht was once right is now viewed as wrong.

That passes beyond the philosophy of Hobbes, and has to be viewed in the light of group dynamics.

I would say that for each specific group, that may be true. Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Ultimately the mandate from the people is what matters. If something works, then it will likely receive support. So to determine what is right, the subjective way to determine it is to look at whether or not it is effective, and supported by the people.

 

[Burt Gummer]

California Bill of Rights:

"No fires, no parking, all animals must be on a leash, no photography, camping not permitted, no lifeguard on duty, penalties will apply, permit required. Gun free zone, noise ordinance enforced. Fly quietly, minimum altitude 1000 feet. No ATV's, personal watercraft prohibited, wake limit strictly enforced, plastic bags no longer available, tow-away zone. Fishing permit required, environmentally sensitive area, no dogs allowed, se habla espanol."

- See more at: "I Can't Believe They Let You Do That!" Bill Whittle on "Freedom" in America | The Daily Sheeple

 

[luke23]

Please no politics. If you want to complain about California, make a thread for it. Discuss philosophy here.

 

[jluck]

California Bill of Rights:

“No fires, no parking, all animals must be on a leash, no photography, camping not permitted, no lifeguard on duty, penalties will apply, permit required. Gun free zone, noise ordinance enforced. Fly quietly, minimum altitude 1000 feet. No ATV’s, personal watercraft prohibited, wake limit strictly enforced, plastic bags no longer available, tow-away zone. Fishing permit required, environmentally sensitive area, no dogs allowed, se habla espanol.”

- See more at: "I Can't Believe They Let You Do That!" Bill Whittle on "Freedom" in America | The Daily Sheeple

Please no politics. If you want to complain about California, make a thread for it. Discuss philosophy here.

Heavens yes... How dare you Burt, Using proof in action of socialism Instead lets talk philosophy just like libtards like it....Talk,Talk,Talk....and plan on stealing from those willing to work, create self worth and have evil "stuff". Just read a book and refuse to work a hard days work and as long as you bubblegum about others who succeed its all good in the lib's mind.

inequality= One unwilling to earn the things they desire.

 

[chariot13]

Please no politics. If you want to complain about California, make a thread for it. Discuss philosophy here.

-Examples of PHILOSOPHY- Per Merriam Webster's -dictionary. Even Webster makes the connection between the very people you keep rambling on about ... and politics, Luke....

"The group eventually split over conflicting political philosophies"

"Figures such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill were mainly concerned with political philosophy"

I believe all politics suck. I also believe your philosophy regarding government & societies, is horrible.

 

[BoonDocks36]

luke23 wrote:

Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder

This makes Truth subjective. TRUTH, ~real Truth~ can not be subjective.

Idi Amin was a cannibal, he thought it beautiful, to eat his victims...

That certainly was not "truth", in World societal views, but within ~his society~ It was OK, Subjective.

Luther, and Calvin, other great thinkers, could see dichotomy in what was then considered "the Church", ~a society~ They were ousted from that, whist providing the usual "you can't fire me, I quit".

They had followers. Developed another society. A different "church" from the other "church" meanwhile, real believers knew, ~the Church~ and were persecuted already...

Giving us another society...I say: Truth, is not subjective.

It is something that has been defined, not by philosophers, small or great, but by God Himself, and when we choose to live ~Within~ it, we "Know the Truth, and it sets us free"

philip

 

[BoonDocks36]

my iPad is on the fritz.

I am going off line to back it up, reduce memory in SSD, will return...

philip

 

[luke23]

Now Luke , hmmmm politics and philosophy are one in the same when it comes to society.

After all, every single form of government on the face of the planet bases its societies structures on politics.
I think California is a outstanding example of a forced society. You see a state falling apart at the hand of the governmental control not individuals. Jock Locke was one of the most well know Liberal philosophers, Epicurus was a huge opponent of the Christian society structure. And of course Plato these others where key people in the history of social structures and affects.

See Luke, when one take on a topic such as philosophy of rights ? One must be open the founders of such study.
Plato wrote about governments such as the ones that exist in California. For me it seem that Burts post was historical and accurate in the topic of this post. In fact you probably couldn't find a better current modern example of the birth of forced tyranny in its infancy.

I guess if you want open discussion on topics like this you have to be open to open historical accuracies, and not stifle those who address there input and are 100% on topic. Doing so makes it appear you want the discussion guided for a a hidden agenda.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm !

Talking about actual political theory would be fine. Making cheesy and overused jokes based on a strawman is not. That's the kind of trivial crap on every other thread here. Leave it there, and discuss something intellectual here. I'm not going to start defending California. It's not remotely socialist to begin with, and everyone worth their salt knows that.

If you want to have a 'rag on the democrats' thread, then make one. But here, just stick to the actual theories and philosophies. We were getting somewhere until that distraction.