[Silent_One]

I thought I would continue this subject in it's own thread. If anyone would care to comment please do so
Sabastian wrote:

Hrm while it certainly does appear that we are agreeing the matter is not that simple. The thrust of my argument is that this current description of what people feel are their rights comes from this human rights pork barreling where groups and individuals make claims agianst the state in that they want something in compansation, from the state, for some preceived wrong. However that is the current arrangement and what was once thought to be the way to achieve ultimate liberty has now become something quite opposite then the writers had set out to acheive. We are not saying the same thing in that I totally disagree with the mentality that people ought to be blackmailing the government over precieved human right violations. In fact it gives powers to the court over our elected representatives in government.

You do note however it is that I rather the notion of negative rights over positive rights as I articulated in this portion of my argument.

I think that while the state and judiciary now have a document to work from in terms of rights all it has really done is create confusion and left the door wide open for interpretive results that may or may not be just. However what is worse once a precedent is set these things become chizzeled into stone and quite difficult to reverse the damage as well as the overall tone. Equal treatment does not equate equal outcomes. But that is what charter law does it creates a situation where by equality is measured in terms of how things turn out for individuals and groups in a statistical manner regardless if they have been treated the same as others. Because the human rights charter does guarantee a degree of well being then the state becomes responsible for the well being and equal outcomes of the persons or groups in question and these are entirely the outcome of the positive rights equation of wants > needs > rights > claims. Since these claims are made against the state they are also made against all tax paying citezens and therefor they are made to pay for these postive rights claims what ever the matter may be. The results are nothing short of a social enginers dream world and the last thing on these peoples minds is liberty particularly financial liberty and we all know what this sort of egalitarian thinking means.

Well we agree more than you think

The thrust of my argument is that this current description of what people feel are their rights comes from this human rights pork barreling where groups and individuals make claims agianst the state in that they want something in compansation, from the state, for some preceived wrong.....<snip> .........We are not saying the same thing in that I totally disagree with the mentality that people ought to be blackmailing the government over precieved human right violations.

I'm not sure when I said anything to the contrary. I have maintained the position that Rights come from the attempt to correct injustices (wrongs), a theory forth by Alan Dershowitz.

I think that while the state and judiciary now have a document to work from in terms of rights all it has really done is create confusion and left the door wide open for interpretive results that may or may not be just.

What document are you refering to? The Human Rights Charter as in this....

Because the human rights charter does guarantee a degree of well being then the state becomes responsible for the well being and equal outcomes of the persons or groups in question and these are entirely the outcome of the positive rights equation of wants > needs > rights > claims.

If that is the case I don't necessarly agree with it. My opinion about rights is based upon the Constitution of the Unites States and our judicial system.

[Sabastian]

Yeah I guess that is the issue. But don't I see many of the same sorts of claims of human rights abuse in the states? or is that my imagination.

BTW here is Canadas human rights charter.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

[Silent_One]

But don't I see many of the same sorts of claims of human rights abuse in the states? or is that my imagination.

I did not know you were from Canada I'll look into so called "human rights abuse" and get back to you....
Also interested in how your Legislative system works. Interesting link you provided. Heres another: http://www.hrcr.org/

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by Sabastian

Yeah I guess that is the issue. But don't I see many of the same sorts of claims of human rights abuse in the states? or is that my imagination.

BTW here is Canadas human rights charter.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

EDIT: BTW the question is .. What are human rights? Not where do they come from, you've already answered that. But your the thread starter and I can only really be subordinate on this matter. I am not so sure that where they come from is as important as just what the heck we are talking about when we talk about human rights exactly.

EDIT EDIT: crap looks like I used the quote button rather then the edit.

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by Silent_One

I did not know you were from Canada I'll look into so called "human rights abuse" and get back to you....
Also interested in how your Legislative system works. Interesting link you provided. Heres another: http://www.hrcr.org/

Well according to the positive rights thingy it looks as though the human rights movement is rather progressive in that they will look for more and more compensation our charter was only put into place in 1984. I am not really familliar enough with the American constitution, it would be interesting to note the descrepancies between them.

[RM. Andersson]

It will always depend on what you mean by rights. If you think of a right as a "claim" or an "entitlement".
I think the best word to describe a right is "entitlement".
Because you can only turn a claim into a right if you win the argument or the struggle. It´s not something given.

As a libertarian I believe in rigths as defined by John Locke. Natural rights given to every individual by the Creator such as the right to liberty, property and resistance to oppression.

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by RM. Andersson

It will always depend on what you mean by rights. If you think of a right as a "claim" or an "entitlement".
I think the best word to describe a right is "entitlement".
Because you can only turn a claim into a right if you win the argument or the struggle. It´s not something given.

Affirmative action for example where minorities are reserved employment over whites.

[kyleb]

sure enough, i don't agree that such law is positive by any means though. people hate each other for all sorts of absurd reasons; and making them act as if they don't only serves to further oppression and build aggression from what i have seen. that is not something positive in my book.

[DemoCoder]

Rights are not a fundamental physical or divine law of the universe. If they were, democracy and freedom would not be such a rare phenomena in humanity's history.

Rights are clearly a human invention, but the fact that rights are something socially constructed does not cheapen them.

The reason we say that people are endowed by creation with rights is because we want to make it *impossible* for them to be taken away by argument, by assigning them to an authority beyond question. It is theocratic/political view that enshrines certain rights as untouchable by man. But it is merely a device, it is not the truth.

The truth is, it is MAN who has endowed man with these rights. And it is man who continues to struggle everyday to make sure they are not lost. Without the struggle against those who would gladly take them away, they would disappear.


What I would argue is that individual rights can only be "negative rights", meaning rights that restrict others from infringing your rights. For example, freedom of speech does not take away your right to speech, it merely restricts you from trying to take away mine.

The Bill of Rights is mainly a set of rights that sets forth limits to those who would try to remove freedoms. Freedom of speech, belief, movement, assembly, etc etc are rights.


Positive rights are those rights that do not place limits on organizations to trample on your freedoms, instead, they are rights that place a demand on you to provide something for others.

Thus, I do not believe that health care, education, social security, and all the other programs of the welfare state are basic human rights. I believe they are priveleges that a society can bestow, but they are not rights, because they put man into conflict with one another, and require someone to provide a service.


To take an extreme example of the conflict of positive rights: Imagine that health care is a basic human right, and there exists a society with no doctors. A government in this society who did not provide doctors, would be violating the fundamental individual rights of the people. If no one wanted to be a doctor, they'd have to *enslave* a portion of the population to avoid being in violation. Thus, to live up to their call to enforce these rights, they have to reduce the freedoms of others. That IMHO disqualifies health care from being a right.

In a less extreme example, there aren't enough doctors or medical resources to take care of everyone, so medical care is expensive, and the government much seize onerous portions of the national income to provide this right.


With freedom of speech, assembly, et al, there is no such conflict. The government does not hire anyone to "provide you with free speech", it merely has to not restrict your speech.


Your right to free health care or free education potentially requires a violation of my individual rights, which ultimately requires the exercise of political power, which ultimately means the exercise for force, violence, against me. Your right to free speech does not. The government need not beat me up to provide you with free speech. If I do not initiate force against you, no force is initiated against me.

On the other hand, if I refuse to give up my property, my time, my money, to ensure you get your free health care or education, the government can come and by force, put me into jail.


I am not arguing against the need to have a literate society, and to provide education for people, I simply do not believe they are fundamental *rights*. Or atleast, they aren't the same as individual rights. Perhaps you could argue based on some social contract, that to be a citizen of society, and be allowed to vote, you agree to provide certain services to all citizens.

But health care, education, welfare, are *services*, not rights. Services are provided, bought and paid for, our rights aren't.


Semantics, I know, after all, free speech is maintained by courts, military, police, etc, but if everyone would simply leave each other alone, they would maintain their rights. On the other hand, education, healthcare, etc can not be maintained by "leaving everyone alone". Whether you admit it or not, there is a fundamental difference.

Think of it as the difference between information goods, and physical goods. Information goods are "nonrival goods". If I copy program X, it does not stop you from using program X. On the other hand, if I use your car Y, you cannot simultaneously use car Y.

Our negative rights are not "rival goods" The exercise and existence of mine, do not require any burden on you, any preemptive act of violence. On the other hand, positive rights are "rival goods", because when I see doctor X, there is a preemptive force in place that assures you pay a part of my bill.

If "doctor X" could be cloned like software, we would not have scarcity, and the conflict of positive rights wouldn't exist. But we haven't gotten past scarcity yet.

Negative rights don't have a scarity of supply.

[kyleb]

please don't take this as rude as i do understand that you may be an atheist an not perceive things in the same way as the men of much faith that are the founding fathers of this country; but i do not think a suggestion that they were using the name of god in vain is a good basis for your argument, even if you might claim to belive in god yourself. i am confident that when they used the term god it was intended to be very literal, and convey their belief that god has given us all the same rights. from what i see, i belive they stated things the way they did in the hopes that it would help us understand that human will is something free for all to use, but we are not free to force that will upon other. this is where it seems they found the concept of majority rule and minority rights, as well as many other great lessens for us all to understand.

[DemoCoder]

Who in this thread are you responding to Kyle, it seems your message is a non-sequitur to any of the posts on this page.

[RM. Andersson]

Some people that are both christians and libertarians might prefer to think of the basic rights as divine or natural rights. John Locke did at least.

[kyleb]

i was refering to this DemoCoder:

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

The reason we say that people are endowed by creation with rights is because we want to make it *impossible* for them to be taken away by argument, by assigning them to an authority beyond question. It is theocratic/political view that enshrines certain rights as untouchable by man. But it is merely a device, it is not the truth.

[DemoCoder]

Well, I'm confused, because where did I suggested they used the name of God in vain? I never even said anything about the "founding fathers".

But if you want to drag them into it, maybe you should read this first. http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm

The topic of this discussion is where to human rights COME FROM. As far as I can tell, these rights were granted to me by OTHER MEN. There is nothing in religious scripture that specifically grants them to me (like freedom of speech) and holds them to be inalienable. That is, not even the prophets of God have claimed to have received these rights from God. And since we can detect no universal law of human rights, by any instrument we can measure with, they are not a natural feature of the physical universe either.


Unless you want to claim that Thomas Jefferson, et al, were prophets who channeled the will of God, the fact is, the Bill of Rights came from the minds of some very noble and intelligent men.

The *justification* they used to assert that these rights cannot be taken away is irrelevent to the discussion. The discussion is about who invented, granted, and defends the rights we enjoy today. God nor Jesus drops down to earth to tell Congress they can't pass a law restricting speech. It's organizations like the ACLU. Do you think the ACLU is God's work?

If these rights were really divine rights granted to us by our creator, then how come we can take them away? Isn't God powerful enough to prevent some people from taking away fundamental properties of creatures he created?

Rights are different in every society, like language, culture, and everything else. They are inventions of man.

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

But health care, education, welfare, are *services*, not rights. Services are provided, bought and paid for, our rights aren't.

The thing is that it seems these things are being considered "rights" but the scope of what you are saying is not only limited to health care, education, welfare etc.. The movement is much wider including impediments on freedom of speech, property rights, even unequal treatment of whites, with regards to native peoples they are becoming first class citizens with extra "rights". I would go as far to say that these "positive rights" are racist in nature. Even (in Canada) there was talk of extending voting "rights" to criminals in jail. Pedophiles have been attempting to use the charter to legitimize their sexuality... I know that in the states (California I believe) there is a strange matter of discrimination based lawsuits based on "lookisim" were by someone discriminates against another based on how they look. Overweight people charging discriminatory allegations against airlines because they can't fit into only one seat.... on and on. These are based on the "positive rights" that the world is pursuing. I would argue that they set in place the ingredients for a welfare state and socialism litterally hi-jacking freedom from within.

[Silent_One]

What are rights? Rights are those preferences that experence and history, expecially of injustices, have taught, for human freedoms so fundamental that they should be entrenched in a nations Constitution and not make subject to easy change by shifting majorities. They do not come from God, because god does not speak to the world in a single voice-rights should exist regardless if there is a God or if there is no God. Nature is neutral, therefore rights do not come from Nature. Rights do not come from Law alone because if they did then there would be no basis to judge a given legal system. Rights come from experence and history, and the mistakes of the past-rights are necessary to avoid repeating the injustices of the past.

[Silent_One]

The thing is that it seems these things are being considered "rights" but the scope of what you are saying is not only limited to health care, education, welfare etc.. The movement is much wider including impediments on freedom of speech, property rights, even unequal treatment of whites, with regards to native peoples they are becoming first class citizens with extra "rights".

In the US the concept of rights is generally considered negative rights-restrictions on the government, and have their sources in the Constitution. There are those in society advocating positive rights - health care, affirmative action, ect... The question is do we Constitutionalize these policys? Do we make a policy a "right" and remove it from majority rule? Until then they are not "rights". They are laws, laws that can be changed and challenged more easiley than "rights".

[kyleb]

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

Well, I'm confused, because where did I suggested they used the name of God in vain? I never even said anything about the "founding fathers".

when presenting your interpretation of the constitution. but again, i am not up in arms about it or anything, i just felt it was important to point out.

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

But if you want to drag them into it, maybe you should read this first. http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm

i have actually studied up on that subject quite a bit. it is a shame how many people do not realize such things though. it is good link for anyone interested in the subject.

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

The topic of this discussion is where to human rights COME FROM. As far as I can tell, these rights were granted to me by OTHER MEN.

i disagree. rights can be acknowledged by other men; as they are in the constitution.

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

There is nothing in religious scripture that specifically grants them to me (like freedom of speech) and holds them to be inalienable. That is, not even the prophets of God have claimed to have received these rights from God.

and i am not claiming otherwise.

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

And since we can detect no universal law of human rights, by any instrument we can measure with, they are not a natural feature of the physical universe either.

however we can consider such things to be self-evident, as the founding fathers said they did.

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

Unless you want to claim that Thomas Jefferson, et al, were prophets who channeled the will of God, the fact is, the Bill of Rights came from the minds of some very noble and intelligent men.

yes, not men who talked to god; but men that were of the opinion that it is the will of god for us to be free.

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

The *justification* they used to assert that these rights cannot be taken away is irrelevent to the discussion. The discussion is about who invented, granted, and defends the rights we enjoy today.

who invented the wheel that we enjoy today? some things came before any of us.

but as for grant and defend, those very much human things which we have to manage on our own.

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

God nor Jesus drops down to earth to tell Congress they can't pass a law restricting speech.

well when you put things like that it does sound rather funny, but i was never claiming such things.

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

It's organizations like the ACLU. Do you think the ACLU is God's work?

i am under the impression that this is all gods work.

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

If these rights were really divine rights granted to us by our creator, then how come we can take them away?

because you are free to give up your freedom as much as you are free to express it; that is just part of free-will.

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

Isn't God powerful enough to prevent some people from taking away fundamental properties of creatures he created?

well, then we would not have free-will; i can't see that as being any fun and i imagine that god feels the same way.

Originally Posted by DemoCoder

Rights are different in every society, like language, culture, and everything else. They are inventions of man.

i disagree. rights are expressed and oppressed though human law and that is different for every society. however, from what i have seen; i belive that freedom has been around far longer than man and we are all entitled to enjoy it wether we choose to accept that or not.

[RM. Andersson]

There is one thing that you will need to think about that is very important.
Two alternatives:

1. The rights exist because of the constitution.
2. The constitution exists because of the rights.

I think most libertarians would prefer 2.
If you live in the US it´s of course OK to prefer 1. It is not important as long as most people think that the rights are fair and good.

If you are a libertarian living in a different country you might not have alternative number 1 at all.
If there is no constitution and the majority of the people dont think those rigths are important you will have to think very differently.
The only choice in that case is to think of them as natural or divine rights.
Most countries in Europe believe in and prefer parlamentarism. Parlamentarism is based on Rousseaus ideas about democracy. And that means that the majority has the right to decide and do anything.
If they want to take away my freedom they can do it. If they want to steal all my property they can do it. If the majority decides it I will have to accept it. There is no constitution that can protect me.

I will certainly never respect a law that takes away my freedom.
And when they tell me that I have to because the majority of the people have decided it I will laugh at them.
I will tell them that I have natural rights and that the law is unfair.
That the parlament have no right that I recognize and respect to make such laws.

[RussSchultz]

Where do rights come from?

The left?

ba-da-boom!

Thank you, I'll be here all the week.

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

The left?

ba-da-boom!

Thank you, I'll be here all the week.

hehe.

For all intesive purposes though it does seem as though the push for these "positive rights" do come primarily from the left.

[RM. Andersson]

Originally Posted by Sabastian

hehe.

For all intesive purposes though it does seem as though the push for these "positive rights" do come primarily from the left.

Yes, they do. Trust me. I know. I hear such talk every day where I live.
And I have to pay about 60% tax to pay for them all

[DemoCoder]

This is much like the discussion people have over whether mathematics is discovered or invented

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that human rights were "discovered", and that they exist, much like PI exists, and Euclidean geometry exists. That is, we did not invent them, we "found them"


If you think that this somehow makes these rights more legitimate, you are sadly mistaken. There are an infinitude of mathematical theorems that exist, there are an infinitude of numbers like PI, and there are an infinite number of systems of rights that we can "discover"

All this does is to shift the burden to justify why YOUR "discovery" of Rights_X is the only true and correct one, and that Hitler's "discovery" of Rights_Y is less legitimate. Stalin, Marx, and Lenin also "discovered" systems of rights for people as well.


Thomas Jefferson discovered one system of rights handed down from the Creator, but there are thousands of other human beings who discovered systems of rights that are in many ways, antithetical to Jefferson.


Rights as a discovered concept, given by the Creator, or by the universe, is a philosophically bankrupt way of justifying that those rights should exist, and cannot be taken away.

I prefer to think that we, as human beings, have decided together, that these rights are inalienable, because we want everyone to have them, because people want to be free, not because God wants freedom for us.

The attempt to elevate these rights to almost religious principles beyond justification is an error.

I am a libertarian, and I believe I endow my fellow man with rights and he endows me with them. I do not believe I do this because I believe God gave you them. I do this because I do unto you as I would have you do unto me.