Silent_One
Newcomer
I thought I would continue this subject in it's own thread. If anyone would care to comment please do so
Sabastian wrote:
Well we agree more than you think
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 wrote:
Silent_One wrote:
I believe there is massive public confusion about "rights". What do we mean when we say that someone has a right to something? Clearly the implication today means that the individual in question has some sort of case against another person, institution or even the state. It seems that they may get upset and demand their rights.
I agree. People are confused as to what their rights are vs. what the "laws" are. People don't have a right to a "free" education. People don't have the right to a job. Notice however that you seem to be saying what I'm saying-our own experences with precieved injustices (wrongs) are used to justify our demand for "rights".
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.
The problem here is that this is not the traditional concept of rights which refered to an envelope of general legal protections that covered each citizen equally. These traditional rights BTW are the ones that built the entire free world. These rights are labeled negative rights because they protect our right not to be interfered with unless we break a law. These negative rights are usually the same for all and protected by law. That is what equality used to mean. Today however it seems rights have taken on a new meaning that being rights to demand package of specific goods, services, money and or privileges from the state. These rights are called positive rights because the person or group declaring them wants more then to be left alone.
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
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.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.
What document are you refering to? The Human Rights Charter as in this....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.
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.