R.I.P. Charlton Heston
These are "natural rights", correct?
The wiki on this is good reading - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right
Strangely enough this page led me to read about "Mere addition paradox", then "Utility Monster", and on to "Minimax theorem"
The wiki on this is good reading - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right
Strangely enough this page led me to read about "Mere addition paradox", then "Utility Monster", and on to "Minimax theorem"
A very simple example on the relativity of rights.
A century and a half ago in what today are called the U.S. slavery was legal. According to the second amendment every American citizen could bear an arm and was also legal to shoot a slave if he tried to escape his condition. Some incredibly "creative" systems of torture where performed in order to terrorize the other "humanoid beasts". Did he have the right to do so? Yes, he did, that right was not only stated on paper but also enforced by the conditions regulated by the 2nd amendment. Did the slaves have the right to escape and have a free life? No.
Same country today. Nothing of the above can be done. What changed? A conflict of interest between the northern economy and the southern one brought to such pressures for the abolition of slavery among other changes that one of the most crude wars to be remembered was made by Americans against other Americans.
Like many other revolutionary processes economy dictated the changes and a new "set of rights" was....well, set. Today not only you can't have slaves in the U.S. (out of national boundaries you can, somehow), but even if you call someone "Negro" you might find yourself in troubles, such being the refusal of what was happening in a precedent "set of rights".
"It is hard to think of rights except as capable of exercise" (Hart1). And what sets them is an agreement of those who have the power to make them real.
A century and a half ago in what today are called the U.S. slavery was legal. According to the second amendment every American citizen could bear an arm and was also legal to shoot a slave if he tried to escape his condition. Some incredibly "creative" systems of torture where performed in order to terrorize the other "humanoid beasts". Did he have the right to do so? Yes, he did, that right was not only stated on paper but also enforced by the conditions regulated by the 2nd amendment. Did the slaves have the right to escape and have a free life? No.
Same country today. Nothing of the above can be done. What changed? A conflict of interest between the northern economy and the southern one brought to such pressures for the abolition of slavery among other changes that one of the most crude wars to be remembered was made by Americans against other Americans.
Like many other revolutionary processes economy dictated the changes and a new "set of rights" was....well, set. Today not only you can't have slaves in the U.S. (out of national boundaries you can, somehow), but even if you call someone "Negro" you might find yourself in troubles, such being the refusal of what was happening in a precedent "set of rights".
"It is hard to think of rights except as capable of exercise" (Hart1). And what sets them is an agreement of those who have the power to make them real.
that has nothing to do with rights.
corrupt systems(all governmental systems become corrupt even if they start of not corrupt, an imaginary reality) will abridge and abuse people's rights.
the reason direct slavery was eliminated is that it is an obvious abuse of the slave's rights as human beings. indeed, there were attempts to mollify the obvious and egregious human rights abuse of the slaves through
1. declaring the slave to be less than human and
2. making laws requiring humane treatment of slaves.
any rights that human beings manage to extract from their keepers are only obtained through the absolute righteous quest to regain the human birthright. see? right is in all the words to describe these things. rights are not subjective, but the power structure will do anything it can to convince you that they are subjective. it takes the general public's willing relinquishing of what is already a person's due to actually take these things away.
to hell with the UN giving a universal declaration of rights that exist only as long as they fufill the purposes and principles of the UN. when ANY agency removes my rights without my permission, then what i am called is a political prisoner, even if i am still allowed to have nice things and walk the street. my rights are mine from birth. my time is mine from birth. my life is mine from birth. it's the same for everyone else, even if they are oppressed, which means that their rights have been removed unfairly and wrongly...
corrupt systems(all governmental systems become corrupt even if they start of not corrupt, an imaginary reality) will abridge and abuse people's rights.
the reason direct slavery was eliminated is that it is an obvious abuse of the slave's rights as human beings. indeed, there were attempts to mollify the obvious and egregious human rights abuse of the slaves through
1. declaring the slave to be less than human and
2. making laws requiring humane treatment of slaves.
any rights that human beings manage to extract from their keepers are only obtained through the absolute righteous quest to regain the human birthright. see? right is in all the words to describe these things. rights are not subjective, but the power structure will do anything it can to convince you that they are subjective. it takes the general public's willing relinquishing of what is already a person's due to actually take these things away.
to hell with the UN giving a universal declaration of rights that exist only as long as they fufill the purposes and principles of the UN. when ANY agency removes my rights without my permission, then what i am called is a political prisoner, even if i am still allowed to have nice things and walk the street. my rights are mine from birth. my time is mine from birth. my life is mine from birth. it's the same for everyone else, even if they are oppressed, which means that their rights have been removed unfairly and wrongly...
There are many violent as****s out there that will not only threaten you and steal what they want, but also rape your wife and shoot your kids in front of you just for the fun. Crack and crystal meth can also make a guy kill you for less than 5 bucks.next to nothing wrote:"but what's up when it comes down to yourself or a close relative, a friend or a loved one ? "
if you ask me, that question is way too hypothetical. but in many, if not most situations were more than one gun is involved, chances for casualties rise. If a amphetamine-fueled armed burglar enters your house, chances are a lot bigger your whole family gets shot if you start fumbling around with a glock.
i for myself would let him take whatever he wanted. id get it back from my insurance company anyway, and my (hypothetical) family would be safe.
As for me, I won't take any chances. If a burglar enter my house and I'm there I won't hesitate to put a bullet in his mother f*****g brain, to be sure he won't be back.
The fun thing is that if I do it, it will be easily justifiable as self-defense, whereas if I Tase the guy and by bad luck he dies, I'll be prosecuted by some animal rights defense association claiming that noone deserves such a cruel treatment and that such kind of torture should be banned.
As I walk through the valley of the shadow of Death, I shall fear no evil, cause I'm packing an M60 with explosive ammo.
I think we are slowly approaching to the real node. There is a confusion in the meaning of the word "rights" that we are using, we are not alone though, there are many different schools and definitions. Well, all the doctrines agree in dividing "rights" in many categories, this primarily because real life poses some issues that have to be solved and while everyone is entitled to his own belief system that differs from other ones, the only way to make a shared system of rules, that is the only one that can work, some criteria have to be set. You might not trust democracy , I do under a certain extent, but for sure the ONLY system that grants the freedom of every person to have his own beliefs is a system who bypasses the belief systems to set the social rules and that uses some procedures on which the majority agree in order to determine its contents.garyb wrote:that has nothing to do with rights.
...........................................rights have been removed unfairly and wrongly...
I respect your freedom to believe that you have some rights descending from the creation, but this won't change my refusal of that concept, I believe that my rights are historically determined. Now, only a democratic system of shared procedures can grant both of us, in a large system, that despite the objectionable origin of or rights that is respectively bullshit as for what are the other's beliefs, we can agree on how will the content of those rights be determined. If we agree that steeling has to be sanctioned we will also agree to pay someone who will take care of that task.
Out of this it's all babbling. You might get crazy one day and say that god gave you the right to the "jus primae noctis" and claiming to make sex with any fresh married bride (btw this right existed in the feudal society at a certain point, the Lord had that right over all the young women of his land, in some places), If you have a personal army and an effective power in some lost village of the third world this right will be effective, god or not god. But, fortunately, if you try that in your neighborhood you'll have some problems.
See, there is something in the juridical doctrine and historical analysis that shows a link between some of your concepts and mine.
It's demonstrated that no rule can be enforced if there isn't a substantial consensus in the society, no matter what are the prescribed sanctions, they will not be effective. For example in the Soviet Union the corruption of public officers was punished with death. In theory. Practically one of the most corrupted systems in the planet never saw a capital punishment for such a crime. Basically because the bureaucratic power had set such a diffused system of corruption that enforcing the law would have decimated more than half of the population...
In fact one of the weak points of the dictatorships which brings them to an inevitable end, often violent, is that they are the same cause of their own crisis.
All the dictatorships start with a huge consensus, but their own ways destroy the same base on which they started. Only a system that is based on "relative" and "conventional" values can be respectful of the individuals, there is no need that they all believe the same things if the only juridical reality is conventional.
In fact the very heart of any fascist system has been the claim of "natural" or "super-ordered" rights, which, as such, couldn't be discussed, no matter if they had racial or other abominable contents. The concept is wrong. What works and is essential in the private sphere is not appropriate for the public one.
I'm still perplexed and quite surprised on how pessimistic is your view. On the other hand I can understand it, with the glasses of absolutism the real world must seem really desperate.
Not that I don't see the horrors, but I also see the chances.
-
FrancisHarmany
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Haarmania
Ok this is a nice thread about rights & freedoms.
As gary rightfully says, he has the right to defend himself... When you get down to the basics, everybody is a free to do as he/she/it pleases, there is no way getting around this fact.
But I wonder about the right of a family, community, or other groups in general. Do the rights of many out-way the rights of few ? If a group decides to defend themselves by agreeing on a set of guidelines/laws..... isnt that their right ? How is the individual more important in this case ? I have no answer for this one.
So what I would like to throw in this discussions.......
Do Not Commit Violence
The only exception is where NOT commiting violence would cause MORE violence somehow..... not killing the gunner who intends to shoot down 20 people is an ACT of violence by not doing (for the spiritual people among us: you carry that karma by your non-action).
As we all know we can commit violence on mental/emotional/physical levels.
If you cant physiicaly be violent, why can you be so mentally and emotionally !? Is this not a good reason to "regulate" "free speech" ? How do you propose people defend themselves against mental & emotional violence ?
I think its often overlooked we are more then some stinking bag of flesh & bones. Mental and emotional violence can be felt a lifetime. A punch on the nose fades rather quickly.
As gary rightfully says, he has the right to defend himself... When you get down to the basics, everybody is a free to do as he/she/it pleases, there is no way getting around this fact.
But I wonder about the right of a family, community, or other groups in general. Do the rights of many out-way the rights of few ? If a group decides to defend themselves by agreeing on a set of guidelines/laws..... isnt that their right ? How is the individual more important in this case ? I have no answer for this one.
So what I would like to throw in this discussions.......
Do Not Commit Violence
The only exception is where NOT commiting violence would cause MORE violence somehow..... not killing the gunner who intends to shoot down 20 people is an ACT of violence by not doing (for the spiritual people among us: you carry that karma by your non-action).
As we all know we can commit violence on mental/emotional/physical levels.
If you cant physiicaly be violent, why can you be so mentally and emotionally !? Is this not a good reason to "regulate" "free speech" ? How do you propose people defend themselves against mental & emotional violence ?
I think its often overlooked we are more then some stinking bag of flesh & bones. Mental and emotional violence can be felt a lifetime. A punch on the nose fades rather quickly.
the crucial point is awareness - to learn from history, from observation and to contemplate beyond borders that society and/or the education system sets.
You'll not only find your own way, but you'll also become a most suspective individual for those in charge of power resources...
One may also find out to be a part of the contradiction that scenario may create
cheers, Tom
You'll not only find your own way, but you'll also become a most suspective individual for those in charge of power resources...
One may also find out to be a part of the contradiction that scenario may create
cheers, Tom
-
FrancisHarmany
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Haarmania
astroman wrote:the crucial point is awareness - to learn from history, from observation and to contemplate beyond borders that society and/or the education system sets.
You'll not only find your own way, but you'll also become a most suspective individual for those in charge of power resources...
One may also find out to be a part of the contradiction that scenario may create
cheers, Tom
Awareness Beyond Names & Forms 
It is not true that bugs have rights because we can kill them for no reason legally. Some animals have rights I'm not aware of any bugs protected under the endangered species act. Probably there are a few rare butterflies that are protected but most insects have no rights.garyb wrote:as i said, even a bug has the right to defend himself. bugs were given armour, poison, stings, pincers, acid and bad taste. a right is not an idea.
BingoTheClowno wrote:Obviously no one cares about the bible commandments preached by no other than Moses, reincarnated as CH. Remember "Thou shall not kill"? This is the same as being baptised on the deck of USS Nimitz.
What a farce!
Yep, Although we are a Christian nation, most of the commandments are not followed. Hypocrites!
Alfonso, i'm not pessimistic, i'm cynical! 
the optomist wil;l always lend uncle fred $5
the pessimist will never lend uncle fred $5
the cynic has already lent uncle fred $5
never the less, my rights don't come from my belief and people find the strength and power to overcome those dictators you speak of through their innate sense of their basic rights which are already theirs. a righteous cause cannot be stopped....there is only a semantic problem between us....
brain, just because you can kill a bug doesn't mean they don't have the right to fight back. crush a black widow spider which has crawled inside your shirt and find out. is the spider bad? no, she is defending herself. the creatures right to defend it's self doesn't come from any laws. corner a bear and see if the bear waits to check congress to see if it's protected....
the optomist wil;l always lend uncle fred $5
the pessimist will never lend uncle fred $5
the cynic has already lent uncle fred $5
never the less, my rights don't come from my belief and people find the strength and power to overcome those dictators you speak of through their innate sense of their basic rights which are already theirs. a righteous cause cannot be stopped....there is only a semantic problem between us....
brain, just because you can kill a bug doesn't mean they don't have the right to fight back. crush a black widow spider which has crawled inside your shirt and find out. is the spider bad? no, she is defending herself. the creatures right to defend it's self doesn't come from any laws. corner a bear and see if the bear waits to check congress to see if it's protected....
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
speaking of bugs, i find this one to fit the topic:
"People who fly have a different view of the world than those who spend their lives on the ground. A very wise man once wrote a poem while he was flying, and he called this poem "The God's Eye View," and he said that this view was entirely different than the view he always had on the ground, which he called "The Bug's Eye View."
Out there, somewhere, in the air we fly through, exists an old Persian legend much like this poem about a bug who spent his entire life in the world's most beautifully designed Persian rug. All the bug ever saw in his lifetime were his problems. They stood up all around him. He couldn't see over the top of them, and he had to fight his way through these tufts of wool in the rug to find the crumbs that people had spilled on the rug. And the tragedy of the story of the bug in the rug was this: that he lived and he died in the world's most beautifully designed rug, but he never once knew that he spent his life inside something which had a pattern. Even if he, this bug, had even once gotten above the rug so that he could have seen all of it, he would have discovered something - that the very things he called his problems were a part of the pattern.
Have you ever felt like that bug in the rug? That you are so surrounded by your problems that you can't see any pattern to the world in which you live? Have you heard anybody say lately that the world is a total mess? That, my friends, is the Bug's Eye View, and seeing only a little of the world, me might be inclined to think that this is true. "
"People who fly have a different view of the world than those who spend their lives on the ground. A very wise man once wrote a poem while he was flying, and he called this poem "The God's Eye View," and he said that this view was entirely different than the view he always had on the ground, which he called "The Bug's Eye View."
Out there, somewhere, in the air we fly through, exists an old Persian legend much like this poem about a bug who spent his entire life in the world's most beautifully designed Persian rug. All the bug ever saw in his lifetime were his problems. They stood up all around him. He couldn't see over the top of them, and he had to fight his way through these tufts of wool in the rug to find the crumbs that people had spilled on the rug. And the tragedy of the story of the bug in the rug was this: that he lived and he died in the world's most beautifully designed rug, but he never once knew that he spent his life inside something which had a pattern. Even if he, this bug, had even once gotten above the rug so that he could have seen all of it, he would have discovered something - that the very things he called his problems were a part of the pattern.
Have you ever felt like that bug in the rug? That you are so surrounded by your problems that you can't see any pattern to the world in which you live? Have you heard anybody say lately that the world is a total mess? That, my friends, is the Bug's Eye View, and seeing only a little of the world, me might be inclined to think that this is true. "
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Goddamn it.... America is not a 'christian nation'
It may be populated by mostly christians, but it is not a christian nation.
Damn.
Also, people here still seem to think that rights are given to the people by the government, this is plain wrong. If you have to ask for the 'right' to do somthing, its not a right. Its a privelidge, a right is somthing you dont need to ask permission for. Thats why it called a right.
cmon people think.
It may be populated by mostly christians, but it is not a christian nation.
Damn.
Also, people here still seem to think that rights are given to the people by the government, this is plain wrong. If you have to ask for the 'right' to do somthing, its not a right. Its a privelidge, a right is somthing you dont need to ask permission for. Thats why it called a right.
cmon people think.