Irrelevant to the topic at hand. There has been a recent thread discussing if there was such a thing as “inherently evil”, if you’re interested in that issue.
My response implies that what is written down in a constitution in a democratic state is what the citizens consider as being the fundements of a society. If the overwhelming majority believes that “free speech” isn’t a basic right, there will be no provision about free speech, or it will be amended, or the local equivalent of the SCOTUS will interpret the provision in a way which void it of any meaning. If the overwhelming majority thinks that being allowed to rape babies is a basic human right, it will be included in the constitution. If you want an example of something which was believed “right” and allowed under your constitution, and later was considered “wrong’” and isn’t allowed anymore, slavery seems to fit the bill.
Are you saying that government has no valid purpose in providing healthcare? Or are you saying that enforcing the law where someone is in danger (by being denied medical care) is equivalent to government stealing from the productive to give a lawyer to the non productive?
Choosing your vocabulary (“stealing” when the money is used for healthcare, and “valid pupose” when it is used to pay a lawyer or a police officer) doesn’t make your opinion more valid…
In such societies, the whole group will take care of the guy who was wounded while hunting or of the respected elders. There’s a social consensus forcing people to do these things. The guy who don’t agree with this concensus will be driven out of the clan/tribe (at best). The only difference is that in our more complex societies, the social consensus is more complex and expressed in written form.
I do. I also realize that the family itself may be too poor, or that there could be no family at all. And also that in our societies which include millions of citizens, solidarity can’t be organized on the same basis than in a little community where everybody knows everybody.
They are as long as they can. By the way, I do pay an insurance for retirment and in case i’m ill. The only difference is that it’s mandatory for me to pay for it (it it withdrawed from my paycheck). That prevent me from taking a “free ride”, spending my money and then expecting the collectivity to pay for me when i’ll be old or ill (hence “stealing you”, as you call it…so i assume you would support this system which prevent me from stealing you).
Sure, they could. As long as they are able to work. No disabled, for instance. If you don’t like the idea that the tribe thinks solidarity is a duty for its members, leave the tribe.
I agree. For instance a secure environment where someone ill will receive medical care which will allow him to provide for himself once healed.
I assume that would include…say, disabled people and orphans…
If you actually believe that, fine. But i don’t think you’ll find much support for this view in our societies (nor in most other societies, actually).
Your premise is that someone is victimizing another person, and the government must step in, where this is merely a case of a private entity refusing to perform a service for someone who is unwilling or unable to pay for it.
In any case, if the government, for some reason, decides to place the burden of prosecution on someone, they must, to remain fair, provide that person with a legal defense if they cannot provide one itself. If you don’t see a difference between enforcing laws with justice and fair defense, and flat out ‘robbing from one to give to another’…
I realize the trap you’re trying to set. And basically, if it’s alright to give $1 to fund a volunteer fire force, it’s alright to spend $20 trillion to make sure everyone has yacht.
Police and lawyers are necesary for a system of maintaining basic justice, to ensure that one party does not violate, criminally or otherwise, the rights of another.
You can try to drag me into the ‘any government expendeture okay means all government expenditure okay!’ trap, but it’s not very satisfying for anyone.
Why isn’t the social (private) consensus forcing people to do things the same for both societies? Society today obviously frowns on letting your elderly mother starve to death. Why must you make the jump that “general societal consensus” then doesn’t mean “general societal consensus now”, but instead means “mandate from a central authority.”?
**
I’m not sure of the actual statistics, but even after we’re hammered with ridiculous taxes here, there are still people that substantially donate their time and resources to charitable organizations. Do you think that if people either had half their time freed up, or made twice as much money, with a sincere reduction in taxes, that people wouldn’t be more likely to donate their time and money? Is a central, inefficient authority that inherently takes more power over people in it’s expansion the better solution? Does it make you feel better to be subject to a Big Benevolent Government?
**
So the government forces you to spend your money now in a certain manner so that you won’t be quite as much of a drain on everyon else later. Is that supposed to be some mitigating factor? I’m confused.
In a system without free government dole, you have the choice as to whether or not to be smart and save for your retirement. If you screw up, and end up poor because you planned badly, that’s your fault entirely. There shouldn’t be a need for the government to come in and reward you for your bad judgement with the hard earned money of others.
**
I never liked that attitude. “If you don’t like something, don’t try to change it productively, or anything. Accept it or leave.” Sounds like a bunch of crap to me.
In this case, the burden is on the socialists. My country was not started as a socialist nation, but it’s becoming one. Life would be better if the socialists decided to “leave the tribe”.
**
Of course, an environment in which someone is able to receive medical care is great. An environment in which someone has the right to such care at the costs of others… not quite so ideal, I don’t think.
What you refer to, when the will of the masses decides the fate of all, and any sort of standards on rights can be arbitrarily redefined by ‘reinterpertations’ by judges are a symptom of democracy.
Fortunately, America - at least in theory, is not a democracy. It’s unfortunate that most people don’t realize that, and don’t treat it as such.
If rights are up to arbitrary declaration of the masses… mob rule… then there aren’t really any rights. A Republic recognizes consistent protection of rights (through lack of infringement) as a pillar of it’s philosophy.
Joe_Cool, along with others here, has been claiming that certain rights require no government action and exist on their own. They’re claiming that they who wish to see the government ensure that everyone’s basic material needs are met are asking for a handout, and that they are asking for next to nothing. I’m pointing out that all these rights would be as worthless as the paper they’re printing on without government expenditure to give them effect. The dichotomy between positive and negative rights is an illusion.
As Senor Beef already pointed out, there’s a huge difference between total anarchy and putting everything under the sun under the label “human rights”. (fallacy of the excluded middle. I didn’t know you were playing too! )
Governments enforce laws because without them, the government would cease to exist. Governments are in place to keep order, not to give handouts.
Why do you eat? Because if you don’t, your body will stop functioning as it was designed to, and eventually you will die. Not because your cells have the “right” to fuel. That is the reason a government enforces basic prohibitions as robbery, rape, thievery, murder, etc. Because if it doesn’t, society stops functioning, and the government is useless. It acts out of self-preservation, not out of any concern for the rights of the people.
Human rights are, as I said before, those things that cannot be taken away from or forced upon a person, and which are necessary for basic human dignity. Self-expression, religion, self-defense, sovreignty of the home, security in ownership, fairness when accused of a crime.
These are human rights. Not daily necessities such as money, food, and shelter. Those are needs. If a nation’s people are barred from such needs, they will die and the nation will cease to function.
Rights are what you are justly entitled to by virtue of being a person. What cannot justly be taken from you or forced on you. Your rights end where they begin to infringe on the rights of another. You have the right to pursue a livelihood, but no right to steal from me what you don’t have. You have the right to eat, but no claim on what is mine. You have the right to live, but no right to a portion of my income to provide you with those necessities. These things impose obligations on me, and make claims on what belongs to me. That is a violation of my right to be secure in ownership of property. It is a violation of my right to keep what I earn.
Human dignity can exist (and abound) in abject poverty. But cannot exist under an opressive government. That is the difference.
Tell me, what government action is required NOT to stop me from expressing myself?
What action is needed for the government NOT to take a portion of my paycheck?
What action is necessary for the government NOT to stop me from defending myself? I’m genuinely curious.
Where did I ask for a law to be passed that will protect my right to self-expression? I don’t think I did. What I said is that the government has no business stopping me from expressing myself. I don’t need police protection to speak my mind or keep my religious beliefs. All I need is for the government to mind its own business, and stay out of mine. Which requires INaction, not action.
So you’re saying that you believe the action required NOT to quash my freedom of speech is the same type of action as is required to take a portion of my income every week? Do you honestly not see the difference between supplying a livelihood and NOT silencing speech?
So basically, you seem to be saying that the right not to be enslaved existed independently of the Constitution or any government’s recognition of that right. That people have the right to be free, even when slavery is legal? That there is something intrinsically wrong with slavery?
Well, that’s exactly what Senor Beef said in the first place. Rights are not created by governments. They exist, and either are recognized or are not. The Constitution of the US is just extremely good (though not totally infallible) at recognizing the people’s rights.
If your rights require me to do something for you or give something to you beyond the basic courtesy and respect due my fellow humans, then they are not rights.
If you’re referring to social security (I assume that’s the case, since 401(k) is not mandatory), you should read a little more carefully.
Money you pay into social security does not go to you. It goes to pay for all the people who are drawing SS income now. Your money is being taken to pay a living to people in exchange for nothing. When you come of age and are able to draw SS (assuming the system hasn’t collapsed by then), you will be receiving money pooled from the incomes of all working Americans, from the 15 year old french fry cook at McDonald’s, to the 36 year old engineer at NASA. None of whom are eligible to touch any of the money they are being forced to pay into Social Security.
I, for one, would prefer to be left alone and reap either the benefits or the consequences of my choices and decisions regarding my retirement. If I save, wonderful! I’ll be able to sit around and enjoy it. If not, I’ll work until I die. Either way, it’s my decision and my future.
Joe_Cool: You are now including a “right to be free from income taxation” and a “right to defend oneself” as among the basic human rights?! These “rights” are not found in the US Constitution, the UDHR, or anywhere else that I know of.
You’re going a bit too far in accusing me of being full of shit. I study under a professor who is probably the world’s leading authority on this very subject, so I’m not pulling this out of my ass. Here’s an excerpt from Stephen Holmes and Cass R. Sunstein, The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty depends on Taxes, which formulates my central point better than I have:
Many of the posters on this thread are continuing to make the leap that ensuring that everyone has their basic material needs met necessarily involves some sort of handouts. Handouts are one way to achieve full human rights, but they don’t address the underlying social problems that cause billions of people to live in abject poverty. It is impossible, as well as morally wrong, to simply isolate yourself from the masses of people who are poor, ill, hungry, and desperate. You don’t have to help out of some sense of noblesse oblige, but because the alternative is a world that is very unpleasant to live in.
The example you made is not a violation of rights, it is the prosecution of a criminal act. If an employer agrees to pay someone, receives work, and then refuses to pay, they are violating their contract, commiting fraud, and robbing that guy of his time. They are using a criminal initiation of force (fraud), over which the government has interest and jurisdiction to prosecute.
What you claim are human rights require a socialist system.
That is an absolutely disgusting statement. To say that we don’t care about human rights simply because we do not agree with you about what they are goes way beyond the bounds of debate, and well into the area of personal insult. If you wish to cast aspersions on our characters, the proper place is the Pit, not GD.
Human rights exist independently of whether people believe they exist. The idea that they can be “discredited” is absurd.
First of all, rights exist independently of how well they are enforced. If no one has the ability to speak freely, that doesn’t mean that they now don’t have the right to free speech. Furthermore, even without the government, I could use force to protect my rights. I would not, however, use force to steal from other people.
That statement implies a lot about how you look at this area. The simple fact that you think that there is such a thing as “authority” on this subject, as if a bunch of fancy titles gives someone the right to tell other people what to do, shows how far away your conception of rights is from mine. There is what I believe, and there is what you believe. You don’t agree with me. Fine. But to suggest that my opinion isn’t valid because someone with a bunch of degrees agrees with your opinion is ridiculous.
How else would you do so?
clairobscur
That is the topic at hand. To say that one has the right to rape babies is to say that it is not immoral to rape babies. Do you, or do you not, believe that people do not have the right to rape babies, regardless of what the constitution says?
Joe_Cool
To be fair, clairobscur apparently isn’t from the US, but from some other, unspecified country in which people think that basic, fundamental human rights are whatever people say they are today.
You don’t think self defense is a basic human right?
Let me guess. You come from one of those countries where the predominant response to rapists is “Please don’t hurt me! I won’t resist! I’m not armed! I have no will to fight! Please don’t hurt me, I’m a good little sheep!”?
**
No “rights” are found in the Constitution. Only limitations on governments to prevent infringement on rights.
**
I’m confused. Are you, or are you not, saying that the government (and therefore, the productive people) should be forced to give handouts to non-productive people?
**
“Taking your money to give to the lazy jobless guy are one way to achieve full human rights”.
And you’re right, handouts don’t address social problems; they create them.
But it is morally right to take someone’s money - money that they could use for the welfare and betterment of their own family - by force - in order to be “morally correct” and “generously” provide for the unproductive?
I find your morality distasteful. You seem to be playing the “You don’t care about poor people!” card, when, really, it’s far more accurate to say that we don’t believe that stealing from us is the proper way to ‘cure’ such a problem.
No, I understand that a government needs funding, and that the only way for that funding to exist is by taxation. But I think that 25% of my income is far, far in excess of any reasonable taxation.
Let me get this straight…you think that the right to a handout from the government is a basic right, but the right to defend yourself is not?! What color is the sky on your planet? What creature on the face of the planet, from the largest elephant all the way down to the smallest microbe, has no defense mechanism? The natural state of any being is the ability to defend itself, and we are no different in that sense. What, because we live in cities or nations, does that mean that we suddenly are dependent on the state to protect us from everything?
The right to protect yourself is so basic that it is assumed. Like the right to privacy and the right to feed yourself. The idea that a person would be disallowed from self-defense was, until recently, utterly ludicrous (and I still believe it is). It’s not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights for the same reason that if I was starting a country I wouldn’t bother to expressly protect the right to breathe.
You may not be pulling it out of your ass, but it definitely seems to have come out of somebody’s ass. And you’re right. Handouts don’t address any root causes. But that’s because the root cause is LAZINESS. Period. And handouts aren’t ANY way to achieve full human rights. They’re a way to achieve full dependency on the government.
Since you’re so concerned about the poor, donate to shelters. Hire a homeless person. Do something real. But no, it’s too easy to say “oh, my taxes will help them” and then criticize those who don’t approve of the way their taxes are being used.
No, and as a matter of fact, a tenet of living in a free state is that I don’t HAVE to do anything of the sort. I do because I choose to do so. Besides, what makes you think that a wasteful government will make a more efficient use of my money than I would?
You’re plain wrong - none of those things are crimes. But anyway, I don’t see how it matters whether it falls under criminal or contract law. In any case, you’d expect the government to expend resources to protect your rights.
The Ryan
That has to be the most resounding endorsement of socialism possible!
You’re definitely overreacting. How could my statement be a personal insult when 1) I don’t refer to anyone in particular and 2) it is a factual observation? The UDHR defines the basic principles of “human rights,” and that definition has near universal acceptance. If you disagree with most of the provisions, then by definition you disagree with human rights. You can’t just use your own personal definition of a phrase in an argument, when an accepted definition already exists. There is plenty of room for disagreement in how to implement them, but a consensus on general principles was reached more than 50 years ago.
I said that the idea of “natural rights,” which is different than “human rights,” was discredited. It was discredited because it didn’t make any sense. I am truly baffled by everyone’s insistence that rights exist independent of any human society. Where are they? Who created them? (Everything that exists had to have been created by someone or something.) This religious/mythical position has no place in a rational debate.
You need the read the statement in its context. I was accused of bullshitting, so it seemed appropriate to cite some authorities on the subject. Yes, there is such a thing as an authority, and you don’t become was just by getting some degrees. You become one by spending your whole life over the course of decades researching, analyzing, writing about, and talking about the subject. You also have to gain the respect of your peers by coming up with original and reasoned ideas. One opinion is more valid than another when it is based on accurate information, logically sound, free from prejudices, etc. If you spend tremendous amounts of time analyzing the issue, you’re more likely to develop a more valid opinion. Do you really believe you are just as much as an authority as my professor?
Joe_Cool
No, it’s definitely not a “right.” It might be necessary to provide a fair hearing for someone accused of a crime, but it’s not a separate right.
Huh? I seem to find that word in my copy of the Constitution. There are numerous additional rights in the Constitution that are not explicitly called “rights.”
When did I say that? I did say: “States are not obligated to give people food, housing, health care, or anything else” and “human rights do not require a socialist system.”
Interesting that you propose these things are solutions to poverty. You actually advocate handouts. Both the actions you mention can only be done by the wealthy, and not all of us are wealthy. I think a better idea is to change the social structures that create poverty. I don’t feel like listing the sacrifices I make to help the poor, because I don’t do it so that I can brag about how noble I am. I put my money, and my life, where my mouth is. You’re really in no place to lecture me.
No special effort?! Tell that to the people who work in the criminal justice system!
So if I said “everyone who has disagreed with me in this thread is an asshole”, that wouldn’t be a personal insult because I didn’t specify anyone in particular?
No, it’s not.
No, it made a declaration about human rights. We have no obligation to agree with that declaration.
Cite?
No, I disagree with the UN’s conception of human rights.
And yet that’s exactly what you’re doing.
Was there a worldwide referendum on the issue? Or did a bunch of unelected diplomats make a bunch of pronouncements that they expected everyone else to just go along with?
Natural rights are a subset of human rights, and therefore if natural rights have been discredited, then there are human rights that have been discredited.
Philosophers have an irratating habit of declaring their own prejudices to be law e.g. I don’t agree with it, therefore it doesn’t make any sense, therefore it has been discredited.
Where are numbers? Who created them?
You’re right. The religious/mythical position that everything that exists had to have been created by someone or something has no place in a debate. Some things just are. If nothing just is, then where did the fact that nothing just is come from?
No, you were accused of presenting bullshit. There’s a difference.
Of course. Do you think that only people with PhDs should be able to vote in elections, since presumably they are more educated and therefore more likely to come to the “right” decision?
You said that the right to live is a right. How can have the right to live, but not the right to preserve one’s life?
Well then, how would people be ensured all these things, if the government does not provide them?
)
That is the topic at hand. To say that one has the right to rape babies is to say that it is not immoral to rape babies. Do you, or do you not, believe that people do not have the right to rape babies, regardless of what the constitution says?