Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights by UnabashedVixen

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I tend to favor individual rights, limiting them as they progressively infringe on the rights of other individuals.

I really don't spend a lot of time thinking about 'collective' rights, because the collection can always be boiled down to the individuals involved.

What do you think of as collective rights?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 1:45 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

On planet Earth, individual rights come from God, not from gubmit.

Oh horseshit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 2:49 PM

DREAMTROVE

Bump. I need to think about this one. Interesting question. I gotta set some time aside for a decent response...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 2:52 PM

Just a cover, Kwicko.

But anyway. I believe a LOT in individual choice, because when you start writing rules to dictate individual choice... Well, my opinion is it doesn't work so good, that it's not ethical, and you have to start being concerned about corruption and abuse of power.

But I do also hold a lot of truth in the idea that once you begin to hurt others, that is an unacceptable infringement.

Of course, it's all case by case and context is important, such as with the issue of abortion.

If there is an infringement, I feel that those affected and the transgressor should work out the problem and find a solution.

But I also consider murder, rape, theft, and abuse to be entirely unacceptable in any society. These cases I believe to have rippling effects among a community, and for that reason I believe that a jury of peers should decide the consequences for someone who commits these crimes.

I note, however, that I don't support the death penalty: ultimately I think that's just a waste of potential contribution that a human could make to the community. It goes double in the case of murder, then you're losing TWO sources of potential contribution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:17 PM

Quote:

Just a cover, Kwicko.

More like a copout on PN's part.

His stupid "god" is the biggest, most ridiculous conspiracy ever concocted and shilled to the people. PN claims that this idiot "god" person handed down "laws" - laws which this "god" feels no obligation at all to obey, since he's obviously the world's greatest mass murderer, and has even been accused of rape (hello - "immaculate conception" my ass!).

Sorry, but I ain't buyin' it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:21 PM

EDIT: Actually, in the interest of protecting the cover, I think I'll take this to a private message, Kwicko.

There is nothing here. *hand waves*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:47 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I prefer jazz hands.

*jazz hands*

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I prefer jazz hands.

*jazz hands*

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Jazz hands are FABULOUS!

Byte: I'm not sure if you'll get to me through a PM or e-mail. Give the PM a shot. The e-mail's a dead drop.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:08 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

I think the idea of 'individual rights' has gone too far - it's created a self obsessed society where people demand their own rights but increasingly run from personal responsibility - especially as rights has become about entitlement.

Yes we should be free to choose how we live our lives, but we need to acknowledge that choices will more often or not have an impact on others. And I guess that is where the clash between individual vs collective happens.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:30 PM

JKIDDO

I like George Carlin's view of "rights': There are none.

He wondered why our Bill of Rights had to be amended 17 more times. "would it be funny" he asked "if we find out after all these years that god is weak in math skills?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:31 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Just a cover, Kwicko.

More like a copout on PN's part.

His stupid "god" is the biggest, most ridiculous conspiracy ever concocted and shilled to the people. PN claims that this idiot "god" person handed down "laws" - laws which this "god" feels no obligation at all to obey, since he's obviously the world's greatest mass murderer, and has even been accused of rape (hello - "immaculate conception" my ass!).

Sorry, but I ain't buyin' it.

The Founding Fathers were mainly Deists, who believed basically that God created the universe, then went on holiday, permanently. So don't be a slackard, and get to work helping yourself and your family. They also called it Natural Law for the atheists.

Every creature is born with the right to kill any other creature that tries to kill it, including justifiable homicide of any human who tries to kill you. Atheists call this Natural Selection.

This was explained by parable in the Bible/Torah, where Moses murdered an Egyptian cop to defend an Israelite slave. Then Moses delivered the 10 Commandments, "Thou shalt not murder", but killing in self defense was ok in the 600+ ordinances. Cop-killer Moses became chief justice of the Israli Supreme Court.

There have been plenty of psychopathic serial killing atheists who claimed to be priests, popes, kings and dictators. Their job was to hijack all religions for mind control, armed robbery and sex slaves.

That dont change the fact everyone has a right to kill in self defense.

BTW, all atheists agree with the Bible that all matter exists forever, and that scientists have no idea what happened before the Big Bang. Only fools and jews think christianity is mutually exclusive with all science. Even Darwin was a christian.

The Commandments and ordinances were designed as "science" to help people survive disease and crime, and were essential for doing so before indoor plumbing, and are equally good advice today with bioweaponized diseases and softkill weapons unleashed.

If you think sodomy is good for your health and sanity then you are insane.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:38 PM

I stand corrected.

BTW, *raises hand* atheist.

But I'm gonna end up a statue of salt any time now, so not to worry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:07 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I think the idea of 'individual rights' has gone too far - it's created a self obsessed society where people demand their own rights but increasingly run from personal responsibility - especially as rights has become about entitlement.

I tend to agree with the basic sentiment here, but I don't think it's about individual rights going too far, as much as it's about how the idea has been misconceived. People mistake the "rock and roll and blue jeans" mentality of the "me" generation as somehow epitomizing individual freedom - but that's pretty far off the mark.

I also suspect that your idea of how responsibility relates to freedom is subtly, yet substantially, different from mine. You seem to think of responsibility as an obligation to society. But as it relates to freedom, it's an obligation to yourself, to take care of yourself. You can't expect to be free to make your own decisions if you're not willing to live with the repercussions. Conversely, defining society as responsible for your misfortunes inevitably diminishes your freedom.

Quote:
Yes we should be free to choose how we live our lives, but we need to acknowledge that choices will more often or not have an impact on others.

This is fine as stated, but it becomes problematic when mixed with a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. In other words, it's right to hold someone accountable when their actions harm others. But to dictate their actions pre-emptively because they might have an impact is to turn the notion of individual responsibility on it's head.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:39 AM

Quote:

BTW, all atheists agree with the Bible that all matter exists forever, and that scientists have no idea what happened before the Big Bang.

I put the lie to that with my very existence. I'm an atheist, and I don't agree with that at all. It's an idiotic thing to say, even by your amazingly low standards.

Quote:

Only fools and jews think christianity is mutually exclusive with all science. Even Darwin was a christian.

So was Hitler. Does that make him right?

Quote:

If you think sodomy is good for your health and sanity then you are insane.

I have no idea what you're talking about on this one, unless you're trying to explain to us all how you got to be so batshit crazy. Stead diet of run, sodomy, and the lash, eh?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:57 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I think the idea of 'individual rights' has gone too far - it's created a self obsessed society where people demand their own rights but increasingly run from personal responsibility - especially as rights has become about entitlement."

Hello,

I think you will find that many people who believe strongly in individual rights are also some of the people who feel most strongly about personal responsibility.

The first rule about individual rights is that other individuals have rights too, and you ought not to step on them.

This creates a de-facto respect for 'collective rights' that is, in my opinion, more compassionate than the collective rights outlined by people who hold collective rights above individual rights.

An 'individual rights' person, for instance, would have a hard time justifying the execution of prisoners. This is an easier justification to make under a collective rights platform, as the collective right to enjoy a safe society exceeds the individual right to life.

At least, this is how I see it. I often feel that collective rights are somewhat tyrannical.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 4:03 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:

Every creature is born with the right to kill any other creature that tries to kill it, including justifiable homicide of any human who tries to kill you. Atheists call this Natural Selection.

Atheists, btw, are no more a homogenous group with fixed views about killing than religious people.

I also doubt that many would use the term Natural Selection in this context. It's more of a scientific term that most people would shy away from using in relation to ethics and society because it brings on associations of Hitleresque pseudo-Darwinian survival of the fittest ideologies.

Quote:

BTW, all atheists agree with the Bible that all matter exists forever, and that scientists have no idea what happened before the Big Bang.

Again with the lumping everyone together into one big, homogenous group! Where are you taking this from? I doubt that most atheists have even thought about this. Maybe you meant scientists both times? But even that might not be true, who knows.

Quote:
If you think sodomy is good for your health and sanity then you are insane.

Considering that people in happy, stable relationships are generally healthier and saner than the unhappily single (discounting the happily single), I would suspect that a couple who practice "sodomy" as a form of love-making actually do consider it good for their health and sanity. And that's gay, lesbian and hetero couples.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 4:21 AM

DREAMTROVE

John,

Thanks for the healthy dose of huh?

I'm skeptical of statements like "... was a deist" because they're usually applied by others and posthumously. The FF were not of one mind.

Moses is a fictional character. Everything about him comes from somewhere else, including the ten commandments, which are found in the Egyptian book of the dead.

Darwin is a christian, but his assault on the old testament is pretty thorough and intentional. Not just evolution, but he thought the OT really had no understanding of the true nature of God.

Whether or not religious rules are come at through intelligent design as you say or evolution, that's debatable. I suspect they split:

eg. Tribe A comes up with a rule "pigs are unclean, so don't touch them" and has no other science for it, and Tribe B comes up with a rule "Mmmm Bacon... Pork!" and tribe b starts dying from trichinoses

People probably don't all die, but they leave and tribe a declares "sinners!" and people believe it, end of tribe a. Evolution.

So sure, religions could make rules that increase your total survival rate but impinge on freedom. Consider an ant hill as a masterpiece of evolution. Ants as a family of species have been around for what... 100 million some years, ant are ...oops I mean "and are"... intelligent civilized etc.

Still, there's also such a thing as an evolutionary wrong turn. Some species live forever, we don't. It appears that our aging mechanism is actually a bulwark against cancer, but being immune to cancer would have been a better one. Hmm. Maybe this why people like vampires so much.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 4:22 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Agent,

Piratenews is suffering from B.S.C., so you may find diminishing returns in challenging or even acknowledging his arguments.

People are, of course, fond of pointing out that Piratenews is sometimes correct.

On a good week, Piratenews is correct approximately 8.33 percent of the time.

The same way a stopped watch can correctly determine the hour of the day.

Not a good enough T.T.B. (truth to bullshit) ratio for me to plan my life around.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 4:39 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Agent,

Piratenews is suffering from B.S.C., so you may find diminishing returns in challenging or even acknowledging his arguments.

People are, of course, fond of pointing out that Piratenews is sometimes correct.

On a good week, Piratenews is correct approximately 8.33 percent of the time.

The same way a stopped watch can correctly determine the hour of the day.

Not a good enough T.T.B. (truth to bullshit) ratio for me to plan my life around.

--Anthony

Hello Anthony,

I suspect you are very right (I do lurk in RWED a lot, and I know what PN posts) but sometimes I just can't help myself. Especially since his post did not, for once, contain off-putting links and images but a plain-spoken and unusually consize and on-topic (for him) text. It seemed more earnest and open to conversation than his usual fare and I thought I would give it an honest try myself. We'll see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 5:25 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Jazz hands are FABULOUS!

Riddle me this, Batman: if you are not, as you claim, Frem's sockpuppet, how is it you have access to one of the only clear photo of him?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 5:57 AM

*HAVE I* claimed that I was not Frem's sockpuppet?

I'm not saying one way or the other, but have I ever claimed so?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

C'n I just jump in (late, as usual)?

Most of you are thinking way, waaaay too narrowly. You're so used the the Bill of Rights that you somehow think it is inviolable, natural, and even (ahem!) God-given.

Just because the Bill says so don't make it so!

If you look further afield, to other cultures and times, you'll see the concept of "rights" morphs over time, and outright disappears for long stretches. At one time- and still in some places- it was (is) not only a duty, it was (is) an honor to be sacrificed to the gods. In some places and though history, people have (had) the "right" to own slaves. At some times, men had the "right" to another's bride-bed.

Quote:
Every creature is born with the right to kill any other creature that tries to kill it

EVERY creature? A rabbit??? An earthworm?

I think some of you are confusing "rights" with "abilities". YES, many (but not all) of us have the ABILITY for self-defense. Many (but not all) of us have the ability for cold-blooded murder. That doesn't mean we have the "right" to either.

So, IMHO "Rights" are granted to you by the collective. They are an artificial construct, a set of ethics and laws defining your relationship to the collective and the protections which it chooses to afford. Period. This particular set of "rights" began with the French Enlightenment and is explained in detail by Jean Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau

At some point, if the burden of the collective becomes too great, reality takes over, and the collective falls. But this is not due to "rights".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:17 AM

UNABASHEDVIXEN

Quote:

As a member of the 53-nation British Commonwealth of the British Empire, Canada is literally owned by the German Nazi Queen of England, who trumps the Canadian Parliament, and in fact suspended the Canadian Parliament when it suited her (banker masters and the shadow govt).

PN, generally I just ignore your rantings because there's really no point in engaging someone who couldn't formulate an argument to save his life. Asserting something to be true doesn't actually make it so, and if you think you're going to school me about the Canadian Parliamentary system, you're going to need a lot more than a google search.

I was actually working at the Canadian House of Commons when the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament (that's the term, by the way. It's not a "suspension" of Parliament). We can have a discussion about the merits of the Governor General granting the PM's request for a prorogation (although, by common law she really had no choice) but it's not unprecendented. It's happened at least once in my recent memory (2000).

On to the point of the post:

The reason I asked the question is because it's something I struggle with. It's easy to say "I have the right to carry a gun" or "I have the right to say what I want" but in real life things are not always so cut and dry. A good example that I struggle with is the idea of hate speech. In theory, I think that words can't hurt people. Words aren't violence. But then I studied the Rwandan genocide. During the genocide, (and this is just one case) a radio station broadcasted the names, addresses, and license plate numbers of Tutsis (the primary target of the genocide) and encouraged the masses to find them and kill them. The criminal tribunal that prosecuted the three men responsible charged them with encitement to genocide, and they were found guilty. Even though there was no evidence these men were personally involved in any deaths, the fact that they facilitated murders with their words was considered just as bad.

So this is what I mean when I say I favour collective rights. Because rights will inevitably come into conflict. I realize that this is an extreme case, but it's why I support hate speech laws, even though they infringe on the fundamental right to free speech.

The reason I brought this topic up is because a lot of times people say "Well, it's my right" without putting their rights into the context of the greater society in which we all live.

*
People before profits

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:42 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

In the example of the radio station, I'm not sure it's a free speech issue. It more seems to be a conspiracy to commit murder. They made contact with people, asked them to commit murder, and provided intelligence to enable that murder. 'Individual Rights' people believe in the right to life. One does not need to reference free speech or even 'collective rights' in order to come to the conclusion that colluding in a murder is a crime.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 7:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rights, right, rights.

Blah blah blah.

IMHO you may as well be talking about purple dragons, or angels dancing on the head of a pin. Just because you can form the words with your mouth doesn't make it a meaningful statement.

Rights are what we choose them to be. The British have more enumerated rights than we do (13), the Germans a LOT more (29), the Swedes fewer (9, I think). Why don't we have the right to food? To a productive job at reasonable pay? To clean water? To a direct vote? You keep talking about rights as if they were real. I assure you, they are not. They are protections afforded to you by the collective. Significantly, the rights that we have do not infringe on corporate "rights" one whit.

"By their deeds you shall know them."

If a particular "right" does not create the society you envision, that "right" should be amended. Treating rights as if they are "real" and inviolable is just... well, stupid.

Why don't we start out by thinking about the society that we want to create, and THEN devise a set of rights around that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 7:02 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

My credo's simple: "Harm none, do what ye will". Ergo:

Quote:
I think an individual has the right to do whatever they want, until the point where they begin to effect others.

and

Quote:
I tend to favor individual rights, limiting them as they progressively infringe on the rights of other individuals.

speak for me.

I gotta ask, too, tho'...why does anyone read or respond to PNs posts? I stopped reading them long, long ago since I pretty much know what they'll contain...the insane ramblings of someone who can't get past his warped anger to even write in terms that make sense. Me, I'm not going to waste the effort, but talk to people who make sense.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 7:23 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Signy,

Usually the society we want to create directly involves the freedom we want to have to live our lives, and the safety and security we want to have to enjoy that freedom.

Hence, 'rights' are not always the end product of a society, but can as often be the foundation of a society.

And OF COURSE rights are artificial constructs that we create. If they were innate, we wouldn't need to discuss them.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 7:24 AM

Sig, the only person I see who mentioned the US Bill of Rights is Jkiddo, who you said is you.

To have have a discussion about whether we should place more value in respecting the individual or the community, we have to have a name for the social contract, laws, commandments, or agreements that dictate HOW community or individual is respected. If you want a definition, then IMO "rights" are a list of things that our particular settlement says we can and can't do without repercussion.

Most of us are aware Americans stole the Bill of Rights from the Magna Carta... And that clearly certain "god-given" rights of Englishmen didn't exist prior to it. Secondly, most of us recognize it was forced on the King by a mutiny in the House of Lords... Meaning, of course, that the rights in question were originally really only intended for the male upper class elite.

Kind of similar to the American Bill of Rights, don't you know.

The question in the thread given was a general question about individual rights versus collective rights, which I can only assume in context are the rights of the collective to be protected from the individual.

I see the "rights" granted to a collective as enabling bullshit where corporations get treated like they have the same rights as individuals, protecting them from certain forms of legal action. Ha and double ha.

If there were no such thing as double standards, such as for race, and no such thing as conspiracy, we wouldn't need group rights. We would only need individual rights, and peers would judge a conflict or crime based on a case by case, transgressor to aggrieved, and not limited by pre-established legal precedence. In this way, compensation for mistakes or wrongdoing would be more even handed.

Also, replacement of the democratic or representative process by person to person negotiation of those who would be involved would eliminate the problems that the marginalized minority often experience (those double standards I mentioned).

Oppression exists regardless of the legal rights that a citizen, or groups of citizens, are granted or agree upon. A good civilization will establish rights and practices that minimize oppression and that respect human dignity and life. A dying civilization will do neither.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:27 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rights, right, rights.

Blah blah blah.

...IMHO you may as well be talking about purple dragons, or angels dancing on the head of a pin. Just because you can form the words with your mouth doesn't make it a meaningful statement.

Why don't we start out by thinking about the society that we want to create, and THEN devise a set of rights around that?

As always , your profound ignorance and hypocrisy is being exposed...Again . By yourself .

Your 'humble opinion' has been shown to be basically worthless , time and time again .

The society 'that we want to create' has already been created , as a landmark event in over 5,000 years of recorded history...

It's the high-water mark of human endeavor , and no amount of opinionating and fuster-clucking by you or your buds can improve upon it . If you don't like the 'society' that you live in , you can either work for returning to working 'the plan' , or you can move away to your collectivist dream-utopia , if you can find it...

Seems to me there was a discussion like this once , where you wanted to deny my Natural Rights , and you said that you were going to report me to 'the Authorities'...

So , are you just a closet-Authoritarian , or just another blind opiner seeking to mislead other blind folk ?

Have a go at beginning to educate yourself a little , instead of just weighing-in with another of your lightweight , counterfactual opinions...It would be less a waste of your time , and that of others :

'...Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is human-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

...Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[3] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

And , just a slight investigation gives the lie to your crediting the Frogs with coming up with these high-minded notions , because the history of Natural Law philosophy goes back a ways further than you indicate...

Meanwhile , the charter under which we live , the Constitution , has been subverted , and We The People are disempowered...

If you want to change your future , begin with knowing something more of your history . The Declaration is a good place to begin an investigation :

'...The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, the text of the Declaration was initially ignored after the American Revolution. Its stature grew over the years, particularly the second sentence, a sweeping statement of human rights:

" 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."

This sentence has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language"[2] and "the most potent and consequential words in American history".[3] The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized groups, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for which the United States should strive.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sig, the only person who mentioned the US Bill of Rights is Jkiddo, who you said is you.

Yep, me.

Quote:
To have have a discussion about whether we should place more value in respecting the individual or the community, we have to have a name for the social contract, laws, commandments, or agreements that dictate HOW community or individual is respected. If you want a definition, then IMO "rights" are a list of things that our particular settlement says we can and can't do without repercussion.

How about "protections"? Many peeps have a different view of "rights". Just read previous posts. Peeps have turned "rights" into a religion, a baseless assumption that a "thing" called rights even exists.

Quote:
Most of us are aware Americans stole the Bill of Rights from the Magna Carta... And that clearly certain "god-given" rights of Englishmen didn't exist prior to it. Secondly, most of us recognize it was forced on the King by a mutiny in the House of Lords.

The people who are in loudest defense of such rights are the most ignorant of where they came from.

Quote:
I see the "rights" granted to a collective as enabling bullshit where corporations get treated like they have the same rights as individuals, protecting them from certain forms of legal action

The term "rights" has NO MEANING outside of a collective. Let's say you have the right to own property, but the big behemoth next door keeps encroaching. How're you gonna enforce your "rights"? Your "rights" outside of a collective only extend to the amount of force you can bring to bear to defend them. The thing which DEFENDS your rights IS the collective: the general agreement that such things are not to be done.

Quote:
A good civilization will establish rights and practices that minimize oppression and that respect human dignity and life. A dying civilization will do neither.

The longest-lived civilizations... which have existed for at least a millenia MORE than the current experiment in "rights" (Egypt, China)... had very few "rights" for the average citizen, if any. There is nothing natural or inevitable about individual protections.

I happen to agree that individuals should have protections afforded to them, and I ALSO happen to agree that these protections should be universally granted, but I'm under no illusion that the 'verse agrees with my ethics.

Quote:
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."

O2B, thank you for making my point with Byte. Just because a piece of paper says it is the word of the creator doesn't make it so.

So sayeth the the Creator.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:47 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There is nothing natural or inevitable about individual protections.

I happen to agree that individuals should have protections afforded to them, and I ALSO happen to agree that these protections should be universally granted, but I'm under no illusion that the 'verse agrees with my ethics.

You're right the 'Verse doesn't agree with you...It agrees with me !

You jump off a tall building on earth , Natural Law says that you will suffer adverse effects...

'Should be' and 'IS' are like , two different things...

If you agree that certain Rights should be afforded to All , then you are making a statement of Natural Law...

I have a Right to my Life , and the defense of it...I also have the Right to be left alone , and to pursue the benefits of my Life , and to exercise the Liberty that I am afforded by these facts...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:49 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
O2B, thank you for making my point with Byte. Just because a piece of paper says it is the word of the creator doesn't make it so.

So sayeth the the Creator.

Nope , the Creator didn't say it like that...But , he also hasn't appointed you to speak for him...

Don't start down that road...It will prove to be a powerful embarrassment for you , based on your past performances...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

arghh!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ahem. Okay, O2B, whatever.

In any case, I'm not going to refer to them as "rights", I'm going to refer to them as "protections", which makes clear that it is a deliberate social (collective) choice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:54 AM

Civilizations die in many ways. I consider a civilization OF death to be dying as much as a civilization that is visibly and actively decaying.

Tyrannical monarchies of the past, built up on the hardship and suffering of the backs of peasants and slaves are civilizations of death. The only escape is the afterlife, which is why religion so strongly featured in these same civilizations. Those civilizations were stagnant, enduring, but dying.

I think protection is covered by my statement of "what you can do" "without repercussions." I wanted one word to be able to describe all of the related concepts, because you're correct, we need to each of us define our definition of "rights" to have a meaningful conversation.

Your argument about a collective, what I prefer to call a community, is correct in so far as you decided to be part of a community. Some people are isolationists.

In the case of your example, IF you are part of the community, what you say is true. You would hope your civilization respects the concept of individual property, though perhaps you and the community would be better served by not allowing such behemoths to form in the first place, or only by the agreement of everyone, as in a true cooperative style business. This approach tends to be more willing to negotiate with individuals impacted by their activity, as it is the individuals that give the cooperative the ability to exist in the first place.

Another option is individual "business" (for lack of a better word) combined with the concept of a strong sense of compassion and community. Everyone has a skill and trade, and ply it, and the community benefits from what they produce. Whether your model is to have people purchase the goods, or a distribution model based on meeting people's needs. A cooperative may work best for large complicated production processes, while other, simpler processes and needs could be met by individual contribution, either feeding and clothing yourself, or growing food while someone else wants to work on clothing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 9:27 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There is nothing natural or inevitable about individual protections.

I happen to agree that individuals should have protections afforded to them, and I ALSO happen to agree that these protections should be universally granted, but I'm under no illusion that the 'verse agrees with my ethics.

You're right the 'Verse doesn't agree with you...It agrees with me !

You jump off a tall building on earth , Natural Law says that you will suffer adverse effects...

'Should be' and 'IS' are like , two different things...

If you agree that certain Rights should be afforded to All , then you are making a statement of Natural Law...

I have a Right to my Life , and the defense of it...I also have the Right to be left alone , and to pursue the benefits of my Life , and to exercise the Liberty that I am afforded by these facts...

Hello,

I think that the 'natural law' of gravity presents a much stiffer impediment to a cliff jumpers' well being than your 'natural law' of right to life presents an impediment to a murderers' well being.

History is replete with examples where the 'natural law' of right to life and self defense has been violated.

However, I have yet to see someone jump off a cliff and fall into space.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:33 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Again, we see how Americans are different from every other people on the planet.

(I mean that in a GOOD way, assclowns)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:42 AM

DREAMTROVE

Mike,

yes, you have claimed not to be Frem's sockpuppet.

Nikiwicca,

Nicca or wikki?

Byte,

The Bill of Rights was taken from the Bill of Rights, as handed to King James II upon his abdication. He signed it in order to escape a death sentence. The Bill was adopted shortly afterwards by the confederacy of New England, the Articles of Confederation in 1881, and the Constitution was created to remove the document from US law, an attempt which failed, despite the federalists best efforts. The federalists then added the supreme court to take the power from interpretting the rights away from the states, in the interests of ultimately dismantling the Bill. The appointment of Sam Alito was the first time the federalists got a Supreme Court Majority, and immediately started to work on dismantling the Bill.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 11:00 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
*HAVE I* claimed that I was not Frem's sockpuppet?

I'm not saying one way or the other, but have I ever claimed so?

Oh, and just to be fair, after outing you/Frem, I've decided to post a similarly incriminating photo of myself:

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 11:50 AM

UNABASHEDVIXEN

The thing is, while the genocide example is an extreme one, it was considered a landmark decision in international law (up there with Nuremburg). A more common example is that of hate speech. If someone runs around painting swastikas on Jewish businesses, apart from that being graffiti, is it a crime? Should it be a crime?

In humanitarian and constitutional law (not to mention politics), it's a constant debate. I wanted there to be a debate here, because I find often times people just assert their "rights" without qualification or even rational critical thought.

*
People before profits

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rights, right, rights.

Blah blah blah.

...IMHO you may as well be talking about purple dragons, or angels dancing on the head of a pin. Just because you can form the words with your mouth doesn't make it a meaningful statement.

Why don't we start out by thinking about the society that we want to create, and THEN devise a set of rights around that?

As always , your profound ignorance and hypocrisy is being exposed...Again . By yourself .

Your 'humble opinion' has been shown to be basically worthless , time and time again .

The society 'that we want to create' has already been created , as a landmark event in over 5,000 years of recorded history...

It's the high-water mark of human endeavor , and no amount of opinionating and fuster-clucking by you or your buds can improve upon it . If you don't like the 'society' that you live in , you can either work for returning to working 'the plan' , or you can move away to your collectivist dream-utopia , if you can find it...

Seems to me there was a discussion like this once , where you wanted to deny my Natural Rights , and you said that you were going to report me to 'the Authorities'...

So , are you just a closet-Authoritarian , or just another blind opiner seeking to mislead other blind folk ?

Have a go at beginning to educate yourself a little , instead of just weighing-in with another of your lightweight , counterfactual opinions...It would be less a waste of your time , and that of others :

'...Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is human-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

...Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[3] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

And , just a slight investigation gives the lie to your crediting the Frogs with coming up with these high-minded notions , because the history of Natural Law philosophy goes back a ways further than you indicate...

Meanwhile , the charter under which we live , the Constitution , has been subverted , and We The People are disempowered...

If you want to change your future , begin with knowing something more of your history . The Declaration is a good place to begin an investigation :

'...The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, the text of the Declaration was initially ignored after the American Revolution. Its stature grew over the years, particularly the second sentence, a sweeping statement of human rights:

" 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."

This sentence has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language"[2] and "the most potent and consequential words in American history".[3] The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized groups, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for which the United States should strive.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

So, for all your lecturing others to "learn about history"...

Aren't you the one who claims that the Constitution requires a natural-born citizen to be born of people who are also citizens?

In all your "learning about history", where on Earth did you ever come up with that whopper?

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
O2B, thank you for making my point with Byte. Just because a piece of paper says it is the word of the creator doesn't make it so.

So sayeth the the Creator.

Nope , the Creator didn't say it like that...But , he also hasn't appointed you to speak for him...

And you imagine you DO know what some nebulous, non-existent "creator" DID say? What, are we supposed to believe that YOU were appointed to speak for it?

Quote:
Don't start down that road...It will prove to be a powerful embarrassment for you , based on your past performances...

Okay, NOW you're getting into an area you might have some experience with. How's that "proof" coming? You know, the "proof" that I tried to have you banned? You never had a shred of evidence because there was none (because no such thing ever happened), yet still you're too much a coward to admit that you were lying. Now run away and go back to hiding under your rock. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 3:09 PM

Quote:

Mike,

yes, you have claimed not to be Frem's sockpuppet.

Curses!

Ummm... I mean, errrrmmm...

"Cites, please."

Relax. I'm just screwing around.

I'm not Frem, nor he me. I'll go on record with that. Under oath, if you like.

The pic was just something that came up in a Google image search for "jazz hands". I don't think it's Frem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 3:14 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Unabashed Vixen,

I'm generally not in favor of inventing new laws to describe crimes that are already described by old laws.

I am also against laws that regulate hate, or any law that attempts thought control.

Spray-painting swastikas on buildings is defacement of property and is already a crime. It is not, to me, a new crime or a more heinous crime because the people who did it were thinking hateful, racist thoughts or trying to communicate a racist message.

There are places where denying the holocaust is a crime, and I consider such legislation a travesty. It is the thin edge of the wedge, as far as I am concerned, where the wisdom of the state is enforced upon the minds and mouths of the people. As much as I despise the incoherent, asinine ramblings of Piratenews, I would not want him jailed or prosecuted for the crime of being ridiculous or hateful.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 3:17 PM

Well, the swastika is a good luck symbol that the Nazis stole from India.

If you're running around with Nazi swastikas, it's at least insensitive, if not repulsive. I think most of us can agree on that. It makes people upset and causes psychological distress to some members of the population.

Being that there's many, many things that could cause psychological distress to many, many vastly different people, and that book burnings are an example of this, I don't think we can rule upsetting people to be an infringement upon their rights. So I don't think we can rule just running around with swastikas a crime.

I think for something to constitute a crime, there must be physical injury, injury to property or livelyhood, threats, psychological abuse/torture, or conspiracy to commit the other crimes.

So if some neonazis were running around using swastikas to organize so they could kill some black or jewish people, you could possibly consider their use of the swastika as part of their conspiracy charges. Or if they were using the swastika to threaten or scare that same population, the threat part of it would be the crime. Although writing laws for threats is tricky business, because there's lots of threats, some that aren't even worth charging. I suppose that's again why I advocate a case-by-case system.

EDIT: Or, the example that you and Anthony were saying, vandalism if it's vandalism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 3:24 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

i find what piratenews said to be really far from the truth. the commonwealth of nations is a group that aims to promote democracy, human rights, individual liberty and not the sort of things you would associate with nazism or any types of fascism

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 3:25 PM