|
|
|
|
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 1 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/24/2009 10:45:53 AM | People claim they have Rights in a number of situations and arguments without really understanding
that much of it revolves around a privilege, a myth or a falsehood.
Rights don't emanate or occur from magical, non-existent beings in the sky, we give them to each other, mano a mano
Since much of the concern over Rights includes permissions, entitlements, etc.
i.e. things that can be taken away at a moments notice, why do people think Rights are so important ?
Is their really a fundamental difference between Laws and Rights, where is the line drawn ?
| |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/24/2009 11:54:47 AM | Laws dictate what governments say people have to do, both for the government and for the people. Rights were intended to dictate what the government is supposed to do for the people. Both are part of Hobbes' Social Contract between the government and the people.
The problem is that laws are very specific in dictating how those laws are to be carried out, while rights are not specific at all. Rights do not dictate which arm of the government is to enforce any particular right. Rights do not dictate the laws which are required for people to do in order for the government to enforce those rights. So laws are very detailed, and can be put into practice very reasonably, while rights cannot, because no-one really knows who is supposed to do what to enforce those rights, or even if those demands are fair on those people.
Really, both laws and rights can only be detailed in practicality by means of detailing responsibilities, upon who those responsibilities reside, how those responsibilities are to be carried out, and how far of an effort people must make, before the enforcement of those responsibilities become more than is reasonable for those people to bear.
But we haven't reached that state of social evolution yet, to realise that in truth, all laws and all rights can only be effected by means of a Bill of Responsibilities. When we do, then everyone will know what they have to do, and everyone will see what is being asked of everyone, and if it is feasible and fair to ask that of those people, and so they can be amended to what IS fair and reasonable for those people to be expected to carry out. When that happens, everyone will know what their responsilbilities are, and that they are reasonable and fair, and that is in their interest to fulfil them, and there will be far less problems in the world, and far more happiness. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 3 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:18:09 PM | With approximately 195 countries in the world , the concept of Rights changes a great deal.
Only those that have traveled extensively in today's world truly grasp the concept of human rights
Thomas Hobbes (1650's), John Locke (1680's) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1760's)
are seriously out of touch with modern society and the world map
People often scream """I have rights, I have rights""""......do they really ? | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:22:49 PM | How would you suggest to enforce the "Bill of Responsibilities"? I have to disagree with you when you state that rights were intended to dictate what the goverenment is supposed to do for the people. Rights are what the government cannot do to the people, or prevent the people from doing.
To try to enumerate what the government has to do "for" the people is asking to create a list that will keep getting longer and longer and longer and longer and longer. As society changes, and all societies change, under your definition of "rights'', these things that the govt. would have to do for the people would change.
At what point would this end? I'll tell you when: When over 50% of the people establish a right to control the purse srtings of govt. in any way they want. In other words, as soon as they vote themselves a key to the "bank".
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:31:45 PM | I like the Bill of Responsibilities idea. But we already kind-of have one: the criminal and civil law! And yes, the statute book is pretty big.
The concept of rights is pretty ancient. Indeed it goes back to Magna Carta (at least here in England). Rights have been won over time by individuals or groups challenging the status quo. There are no fundamental rights; I mean Nature is indifferent to suffering, so you can't look to her for their philosophical basis. There is the individual and the group. I suppose rights and responsibilities are manifestations of our need to get along with one another. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/24/2009 1:18:47 PM | | The concept of rights is normally understood to belong within the context of social contract. You can claim a divine right, a human right, a legal right and more power to you but in practical terms it's pretty clear that your personal power to control the actions of other people is limited by their willingness to agree with your assertion. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/24/2009 2:11:24 PM | RE msg 5 by RobinsonUK:
I like the Bill of Responsibilities idea. But we already kind-of have one: the criminal and civil law! And yes, the statute book is pretty big. But that is not actually what the criminal and civil law set out to do. They dictate what laws the government can impose on the people. They don't really dictate what your responsibilities are in protecting the rights of others, other than in a general way, such as "don't murder", but without detailing how that is supposed to happen in the situations in which it does happen. They don't even dictate which government agencies are supposed to carry out the laws that it is supposed to handle, or how.
Take the Housing Act. Originally, it said that the government had to house anyone who didn't have anywhere to live. Very sensible. But then it handed that to the Housing departments of the local councils, as part of their overall responsibilities. To cover that, they were given a budget to cover all those responsibilities. But they found that housing needs were proportionate to the number of people needing housing in a particular council, and as there wasn't a separate budget for covering housing for each council, invariably each council ran out of money. Other laws factored in, such as the Right to Buy your own council house. But in the end, it became clear that councils were not meeting the government's own bill. So they changed the bill to say that the government was no longer required to house everyone, but was required to give advice and help to anyone needing housing. This too has suffered the same problems of a lack of proper budgeting, and as a result, the government unofficially tells its housing aid agencies to not be forthcoming with giving out advice, but rather to just deal with those who come and ask for such advice. As a result, those who become homeless often have no idea what aid they can get from the government, and end up in very difficult situations, like sleeping rough, and only find out about these services from local charities and from word-of-mouth from other homeless people. What's more, those who work in such housing aid agencies often find themselves dealing with a ridiculous amount of work, way beyond what is reasonable, because no-one actually details what is reasonable for the workers of such agencies to deal with, and that the government needs to outline how to put such bills into practice by those workers.
The idea of a Bill of Responsibilities, is to mirror the Bill of Rights, to dictate exactly what is each person's responsibilities, according to their job, and their personal situation. Until that happens, we'll continue to have the same mismanagement as we currently do in the UK, spending about 10 times what we need to, simply because no-one is thinking practically about how things would need to work to get done in reality. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 8 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/24/2009 2:20:01 PM | Rights never exist when a human is on an island all alone.
The animal kingdom usually has social conduct relating to protection, resources, and war.
Even primates have coalition strategies based on dominance, conflicts, trading behavior, etc. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/24/2009 3:01:43 PM | Hi Scorpion
What you outlined as haveing happened in the UK is what will happen EVERY TIME that people are not allowed to make their own choices, and if they make the wrong choices, to FAIL.
Whenever you try to have a beauracrosy to micro manage even the general populaces housing, it will FAIL. Yet there are those who insist on trying this again and again and again. The governments job is to get out of the way of the general populace and let them use their own skills, aptitudes and initiative to achieve to whatever level that they can. There are those that won't be able to achieve much. At that point, it is not up to the govt. to "take care of them'', it is up to the charity and kindness of people as a whole to care for them, and they always will.
The only jobs that a govt. should have are that of security, providing for an infrastructure and thats about it. When they start doing more, they end up being the commitee that created the camel................
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/24/2009 11:03:54 PM | | People are far too obsessed with "rights" over responsibility. As far as I'm concerned no one has a "right" to anything. And the sooner people start looking as a responsibility, the better off we'll all be. Forget human rights and start talking human responsibility. If I had my way, reproduction would be a licensed event. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 3:01:35 AM | The rights I have are those that are granted to me by governing agencies... Both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Human Rights dictate what those rights are... toss in of course the notwithstanding clause and voila... this outlines others' responsibilities to me.
Laws on the other hand are my responsibility to others and the guidelines I must follow otherwise I forfeit my rights to the higher power. Each level of government mandates certain laws... right down to municipal government enforcing by-laws.
So... in simplistic terms, rights are others' responsibilities to me, laws are my responsibilities to others... | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 5:49:13 AM |
Some laws, not all.
There are those that are designed to protect you from yourself. For every rule there is an exception. I might add that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also contains a notwithstanding clause that protects a certain portion of Canadians from being assimilated in the country as a whole.
Yet I'm not refering to the exceptions, but the rules in general which is what most dicussions encompass. As a basic premise, I stand by my original post. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:11:30 AM | RE Msg: 9 by Paul K:
Hi Scorpion
What you outlined as haveing happened in the UK is what will happen EVERY TIME that people are not allowed to make their own choices, and if they make the wrong choices, to FAIL.
Whenever you try to have a beauracrosy to micro manage even the general populaces housing, it will FAIL. Yet there are those who insist on trying this again and again and again. The governments job is to get out of the way of the general populace and let them use their own skills, aptitudes and initiative to achieve to whatever level that they can. There are those that won't be able to achieve much. At that point, it is not up to the govt. to "take care of them'', it is up to the charity and kindness of people as a whole to care for them, and they always will. We didn't always have a Housing Act. Before it, we had a lot of people who just remained homeless, and a lot more dead on the streets every day. It was the lack of charity that left so many remaining homeless, that resulted in social reformers pointing out that if the people won't act, then the government must take up the slack. The only problem that remains, is that many in government are not realistic enough to realise that just as with a computer system in a business, or an electricity network, if it isn't planned out properly, it will become a mess, the same applies with any form of infrastructure, and it really doesn't matter if it's there to make money or to help people. The only difference is that if it's there to make money, there are a lot more people who are willing to put the effort in to plan it out right, that makes it work.
The only jobs that a govt. should have are that of security, providing for an infrastructure and thats about it. When they start doing more, they end up being the commitee that created the camel................ Such things as providing housing, ARE part of the infrastructure. Without it, you'd have to carry a gun, because you'd find a homeless guy trying to sneak onto your porch to get a night's sleep, and you wouldn't know if he was just a homeless guy looking for a place to sleep, or a serial rapist and murderer looking to rape and kill your loved ones.
But you are right. When enough people give charity, then there will be enough charities that governments won't need to establish such infrastructure. The people will, all by themselves, out of civic duty, responsibility. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 9:29:45 AM | i.e. things that can be taken away at a moments notice, why do people think Rights are so important ?
I was actually thinking about human rights this morning, and the belief of inherent value.
I won't go into the details of what fueled this spurious thought, but it brought up some interesting introspection...
we give them to each other
What would a person have to do, in order to lose their rights?
I was reading an article the other day, about a woman who was stabbed, choked, and left for dead, while her daughter was murdered, before her eyes. (The incident actually happened several years ago, the article was moreso focused on her healing process, and dealing with the aftermath of a tragic situation.)
And don't get me started on pedophiles and child rapists.
I don't generally give in to pessimistic thoughts...I try to retain a sense of optimism, especially regarding human morality. However, after reading stories like these, I find that I have a very visceral response. And I find myself in a paralyzed state of ambivalence. Because my gut reaction, is to shoot them. (Even though I don't have a gun, and would probably have no idea how to operate one. Okay. I would just hit them in the head with a cast-iron skillet.)
But my core values would say otherwise.
When we talk about rights, and we get down to the specifics...what are we talking about here?
When we get down to the specifics, do we lose sight of the philosophy of rights? Do we lose the concept of what is right?
When does a person, (or even if, lose their Rights?) | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 10:25:51 AM | Hi Scorpion
After reading your post, I realized that it is the same as all who believe as you do. Basically, and correct me if I am wrong, but you say that there just wasn't enough money, time, effort, or most importantly, the wrong people were in charge. I am here to tell you that the premise itself is much more than flawed, it just doesn't work. You are espousing the govt. to micro-manage that particular sector, when govt has PROVEN time and again that they can't even run their own lives in a reasonable manner. And then to ask them to take care of every body, well, since they proven to be incompetent at best, what else can you expect.
Here is a little example that happened in the great state of Nevada. There was a legal brothel that was taken over by the Fed. Govt for failure to pay taxes. Instead of shutting it down, they decided to run it for a while................. they could not show a profit..... and that is selling whiskey and the most renewable resource known to mankind........................................... so they shut it down. What could be easier, and you think that govts. can actually cure homelesness?
Infrastructure means roads, sewers, water, garbage pick up, public safety--police, and military. Building homes for homeless was tried, they all ended up as above ground sewers, all you have to do is go look at any public housing project and you will see what I mean. Then compare that to privately owned. Not even close. What organizations such as the ones that build small homes for those who can't afford it is different, because the people who live in those houses actually take care of them, and it is NOT done with govt. funds. They are taken care of because they have pride of ownership.
Paul K | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 16 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 12:01:46 PM | In many countries around the world people will loose their rights
--when they commit gross atrocities against fellow human beings.
Felons in the USA will face consequences regarding :
--restrictions on employment
--access to public social benefits and public housing
-- being ineligible for many educational benefits
--loss of parental privledges
--a criminal history is a matter of public record
Many other countries have tougher consequences , resulting in severe loss of rights or ""freedoms""
For those of us that live near international borders (example Detroit,Michigan & Windsor, Canada)
we are a bit more attune and respectful to the fact ""Rights"" don't follow us everywhere.
Rights fly completely out the window whenever a government wants them to.
Examples exist all over the world in modern day regimes of many progressive countries.
People would be wise to check-- what rights they actually have (vs.) what they think they are entitled to | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 12:51:31 PM | | ^ can you explain to me what you mean by "progressive"? This word has recently been bleated out constantly in the media. Politicians spout it all the time. It seems to be the new "radical" (radical used to be a word UK politicians couldn't open their mouths without saying). I'm not sure what it means. Everyone wants to make progress, so it surely doesn't mean that! | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 1:10:12 PM | Hi Rob
In the '20's and '30's, there was quite a "socialist" movement in the US. That means communist...... They couldn't call themselves communists, so they took the word"progressive" This is in history books, common knowledge. Today it is being co-opted by the radicals, the far left, and generally by those who have no knowledge of history because it sounds so warm and fuzzy.
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 1:22:20 PM | | ^ Oh dear! Well, that brings a whole new meaning to the Roy Hattersly article I read in The Times earlier today. It seems to be some kind of euphemism. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 20 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 1:32:42 PM | Woah.....I meant progressive as NOT a 3rd world dirt eating tribal culture
Not everything revolves around the USA , there are 195 countries in the world , 7-8 Billion people
--my guess the citizens of those countries also feel they have some sort of "rights"
Paul K took my post and twisted it in a way it was never intended - sorry fella | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 4:21:50 PM |
So... in simplistic terms, rights are others' responsibilities to me, laws are my responsibilities to others
If this were true, from someone else's point of view, rights would be your responsibility to them and laws would be their responsibility to you.
...kind of makes your definitions meaningless. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 4:34:51 PM | So... in simplistic terms, rights are others' responsibilities to me, laws are my responsibilities to others If this were true, from someone else's point of view, rights would be your responsibility to them and laws would be their responsibility to you. ...kind of makes your definitions meaningless. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 5:04:55 PM | | I think the confusion here comes from positive acts (responsibilities) as opposed to negative ones (that mean you have broken the law). In that sense a bill of responsibilities would be new. But it kind-of contradicts the concept of freedom and liberty of the individual, so I have decided not to enact this in my "progressive" utopia ;). In any case it seems Humanity acts in this way when confronted with a challenge. We all muck-in together, don't we? to an extent.... Otherwise, we leave each other to get on with living our lives, provided living your life doesn't negatively impact mine. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 5:17:42 PM | RE Msg: 17 by Paul K:
Basically, and correct me if I am wrong, but you say that there just wasn't enough money, time, effort, or most importantly, the wrong people were in charge. Nope. Not the problem at all. Governments tend to think in terms of what's convenient for them, not what works. When businesses do that, they go bankrupt. When government agencies do that, they mess up. But when businesses and government agencies think in terms of what works, irrespective of policies and convenience, they get lots done.
You are espousing the govt. to micro-manage that particular sector, when govt has PROVEN time and again that they can't even run their own lives in a reasonable manner. Again, nope. I've been micro-managed. I know all too well how badly it doesn't work. But I ALSO have been left to my own devices, and expected to produce results without enough support from management. So I know all too well how badly that doesn't work as well. What usually happened to me, was that when the overall boss appointed the guy he wanted to manage me, because it was convenient, but he didn't know my job, only his job, then he managed me as if I was doing his job, and when I needed support, he wasn't there, and when I needed to just get on with it, he was over my shoulder. But, when I got someone who had done my job before, even though it required extra expense for the company, he was there when I needed him, and not when I didn't, and my work went like clockwork, some even getting done in record time. It's a question of focussing on what works, and not what allows you to avoid putting in the effort that's needed to get the job done.
Here is a little example that happened in the great state of Nevada. There was a legal brothel that was taken over by the Fed. Govt for failure to pay taxes. Instead of shutting it down, they decided to run it for a while................. Why didn't they just do the sane thing, garner their profits every week till they paid off the back taxes and have an accountant check the books periodically to make sure they weren't just cooking the books? If they were seriously worried, all they'd need is to have a trustworthy accountant on site, to take all the money, and record it properly in the accounts system. The brothel owners would probably have loved it, because he'd make their business run much smoother, and find lots of ways for the brothel to claim more expenses, and set up a quality investment portfolio for the workers for their retirement. Did they do that? Nope. When they took over the brothel, did they put another successful brothel owner in charge, who had successful experience of running a brothel? Not likely. Probably put a cop and a government official in charge, who knew nothing about working in a brothel, or working in a brothel, or running a successful business in the service industry.
they could not show a profit..... and that is selling whiskey They couldn't even make money off the liquor. Doesn't that tell you that whoever was put in charge, knew NOTHING about running a business successfully?
What could be easier, and you think that govts. can actually cure homelesness? Not unless they do what works. I've seen lots of businesses fail for exactly the same reasons. They didn't do what worked, but what was easier for them, and more convenient, and they went bankrupt.
Infrastructure means roads, sewers, water, garbage pick up, public safety--police, and military. A lot of that is being fouled up so much, by people not doing what works, that a LOT of that is now passed into private hands. A LOT of them are being fouled up by the private businesses that took them on, even more than under government control. So unfortunately, blaming government control isn't the answer, or private companies would be doing a better job than the government, and they're not.
Building homes for homeless was tried, they all ended up as above ground sewers, all you have to do is go look at any public housing project and you will see what I mean. I know EXACTLY what you mean. The homeless have been homeless. They know what problems homeless people face, and what they need, and don't need. The successful homeless shelters are all run by people who used to be homeless. The rubbish ones are all run by people who have no idea what it's like to be homeless and spent their whole lives in nice, clean, privately owned homes. They have no idea what homeless people go through, and no idea what they need. They spend fortunes on what homeless people don't need, and almost nothing on what they desperately need.
Then compare that to privately owned. Not even close. What organizations such as the ones that build small homes for those who can't afford it is different, because the people who live in those houses actually take care of them, and it is NOT done with govt. funds. They are taken care of because they have pride of ownership. Nope, because a lot of private homes end up like dirt as well, usually when a rich guy is in charge of them who has never lived in a small home, again because they have no idea what such homes and such people need. But when housing associations are run by people who have lived for years in the same types of homes in the same types of places, they know what the problems are, and they cater for them. They know what the problems are NOT, and they don't waste valuable resources on them.
We have a lot of people who think like you in the UK. I've worked for quite a few. They're great fun as friends. But they are nightmares to work for. They don't do what works. They do what is convenient and easy for them. That's always a nightmare for everyone else. That's why I'd rather agree to work 12 hours a day 6 days a week for someone doesn't think at all like you do, than agree to work 8 hours a day 5 days a week for someone who thinks like you. I actually end up working far less hours, rather than work to death's door, I enjoy my work, rather than hate it, and I end up with enough money in my pocket to enjoy myself and have left at the end of the night, rather than just enough to survive. I've done both, several times. I now know which way works. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 5:45:42 PM |
Each person should be thinking of this in first person scenario to give it credence... one can also replace others with society - since we're splitting hairs that is...
Fine. If I look at you and another person, how do I define your responsibilities to each other?
We're not splitting hairs. Your responsibilities to a person can't be dependent on your perspective. If that's the case, then you and the other person are using 2 different criteria for their responsibilities to you (as well as you to them). You can say, "He is responsible for doing THIS," whatever "THIS" is because you are using your "rights" and he can say, "No, I'm not," because he is using "laws".
You can claim a divine right, a human right, a legal right and more power to you but in practical terms it's pretty clear that your personal power to control the actions of other people is limited by their willingness to agree with your assertion.
That's one of the few things that makes any sense in this thread, in any and all definitions of "rights". | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
