| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 10/7/2009 11:10:22 AM | | Are the two words synonymous? Is there a significant difference between the two? Can a situation exist where something is protected as a right, and yet, is still is unfair? Is the existance of rights the pursuit of achieving such a "fair state"? Is the constant alteration of our laws to make things "fair" the right thing to do? Can Rights be perverted through fairness so that, in the end, it has the opposite effect of reducing peoples rights in order to create "fairness"? And do people have the freedom to create a situation where things are not fair- that if you work for a greater standard, you've earned it? Or is society the pursuit of a world of equality that itself could be considered unfair? | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 10/7/2009 1:46:33 PM | Life and nature are inherently unfair. If there is to be any fairness, it has to come from us. We call it justice. The whole business of law and the courts is based on finding a just solution to a matter of controversy.
The concept of fairness (what is just) is not synonymous with rights, but is intimately related to it. To make a long story short, rights come with corresponding obligations. You have the right to live, but you are also obliged (in all FAIRNESS) to uphold that right for others and to not kill anyone unjustly (unfairly). Basically speaking, you have the right to do anything you damn well please as long as it doesn't infringe on somebody else's rights. If it does, you are causing harm and stand in violation of the single commandment of natural law (Do no harm.)
There are occasions where claims of "right" may conflict between two or more parties. This creates a controversy, which (if we are to be lawful) must be settled either by direct negotiation of a contract agreeable to both parties, or by adjudication, wherein the court may be tasked with determination of the fairest solution to the controversy.
is society the pursuit of a world of equality that itself could be considered unfair?
Equality under law is NOT the same as equality in general. It only means that every individual has the same value in the sense that there can be no favoritism. The King and the peasant are equal under the law. | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 10/7/2009 2:13:53 PM | What is fair to one person may not be fair to someone else. Rights, however exist in a vacum. When most people speak of a "world of equality", they are referring to an outcome, which can never be legislated or pre-determined. Trying to control outcome is one of the biggest mistakes that man can make. As long as everybody has access to the same opportunity, let the chips fall where they may.
The people that go to great lengths today to be "all inclusive", and "diverse", are usually the ones who bemoan the fact that the results are always different for different people. Results being different is called......... NORMAL. AND, y ou can't fix normal.
Paul K | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 10/7/2009 4:26:52 PM | You can pay into a system, and when you need to access it, be denied it. {shrug}...nothing "fair" about it....certainly your "right" to collect...but the "rights" of the majority supersede your individual rights.
Also, often the "rights" of a corporation or some other entity come before your rights.
Rights are ONLY good for the majority...certainly not a minority. | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 10/7/2009 6:23:12 PM | | No, the two words aren't synonymous, IMO. Affirmative action has to do with rights but is it fair? I don't think so. While we try to be fair, there are rights to protect the minority in a lot of cases and while there may be a goal of true equality, there may be policies to tip the scales either way. | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 10/7/2009 6:41:32 PM | You can pay into a system, and when you need to access it, be denied it. {shrug}...nothing "fair" about it....certainly your "right" to collect...but the "rights" of the majority supersede your individual rights.
We pay into a system that has a set of rules and if you do not meet the criteria for the pay out you do not get paid, that is not because of the fact that you are not in the majority it just places you in the minority.
You are not there because of what it is, you are what it is because you are there.
Also, often the "rights" of a corporation or some other entity come before your rights.
We have the same rights as corporations.
Corporations have not always had the same rights as individuals
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with taxation of railroad properties. The case is most notable for the obiter dictum statement that corporations are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
After that we they where granted the same rights as individuals.
Unfortunately we can not hold them accountable in the same we can each other, so that is one of their advantages and the other is their power due to the $ factor, but the rights are the same.
Rights are ONLY good for the majority...certainly not a minority.
Really last I checked there where no special parking spots for able bodied people.
Also do not forget about the top 1% earners as they control over 95% of the wealth.
I would say they are a happy minority.
IMO
True equality is impossible to obtain and goes against natures rules. | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 10/7/2009 7:29:57 PM | ........ wonder how many "rights" threads there'll be before people tire of the topic........
(oop, did I think that out loud ?) | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 10/7/2009 9:50:18 PM |
(oop, did I think that out loud ?)
That's OK...You have the right! | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 10/7/2009 10:01:15 PM | Sometimes there are conflicting rights - so what's fair then?
Let me tell you a story happening in my home town: Back in the '60's the government of the day appropriated a bunch of farm land that went back for generations in the families involved. This was all reclaimed land made arable by diking. Anyway, the government never used the land, while the families continued to farm it and paid rent. A few years back, the government decided they were never going to need it. However, the lands claims issue of the local native band was working it's way through negotiations. Now all their traditional land was pretty much in private hands. This land was the only big chunks of government owned land available. So either the families that had to sell would be allowed to buy their land back, or the band was going to get land. It doesn't really matter who won that - somebody got screwed.
Conflicting rights. | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 10/7/2009 10:40:18 PM | | I'd say it was unfair of the government to expropriate the land from the farmers and force them into tenancy on land their forefathers had cleared. On the other hand, the aboriginals may have had a prior claim to the land, but it appears that claim hadn't been exercised in over a hundred years. (ya snooze ya lose). I would say that the superior claim belongs to the farmers who were born on it and had worked it all their lives. I should point out that nobody can really own land (including the government). It doesn't belong to anyone, but may be claimed for use by necessity (to grow sustenance). Since it was already being used in that capacity by the people born on it and living there, I feel quite safe in saying the farmers had the fair claim to the land. | |
|
| |
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 10/8/2009 9:45:19 AM | Ok....and if you DO fit into a catagory where you are supposed to be collecting your "rightful benefits", and still denied? Seems a certain company here has been really pushing the union. A few claims are ignored...that should not be. Seems doctors are hired to deliberately misdiagnose patients so that they cannot collect. Sounds damned fishy to me!
So...here we have a corporation, denying you your "rights", with the blessings of the union. As long as those jobs stay there, the union goes along with what the corporation says.
Then we have workmens comp going along with what the union is saying. Instead of asking WHY 3 different doctors have 3 different opinions, BUT, all three exempt the injured party from collecting. Then a 4th doctor, who actually TREATS the patient finds it was something that is SUPPOSED to be covered.
Who got screwed?
Better yet, who got paid off, besides the first 3 doctors?
Think about it.... | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 10/8/2009 8:22:10 PM |
Are the two words synonymous? No.
Is there a significant difference between the two? Yes.
Can a situation exist where something is protected as a right, and yet, is still is unfair? Yes. It's the right of pub-owners to choose who to let into their establishments. In the City of London, there are plenty of pubs that refuse people in work overalls, but outside of the City, no such requirement exists at all. Is it fair that if you work as a plumber in the City, that you have to change clothes before you can buy a pint at lunch time, but your mate, who works as a plumber a few miles out of the city, can drink to his heart's content, just as he is, just because of where he happened to get a job?
Is the existance of rights the pursuit of achieving such a "fair state"? The existence of rights is IN the pursuit of achieving a fair state. Rights were established because some had more power over others, such as rich over poor, and would use their greater power unfairly. Rights were established to make both groups equal, and so put a stop to that abuse of power. But equally, rights are themselves a source of power that is enforced by the police, and so they too can be abused to treat others unfairly. It's not a perfect system. It's just an attempt to improve things. It's trial and error in practice.
Is the constant alteration of our laws to make things "fair" the right thing to do? Yes. Life is dynamic, and society changes constantly. So the laws that protect us have to as well. Usually, legislators are playing catch-up to how society has already changed, so in the meantime, those who are quickest to adapt, can use the temporary lack of protection by the law to their advantage unfairly. Also, because the law changes so often, those who keep up with the changes in the law know much more of what is and isn't protected by the law, than those who don't, and can again use that greater information to their advantage unfairly, because knowledge is power, and in this case, the police and the courts will be forced to back them up.
Can Rights be perverted through fairness so that, in the end, it has the opposite effect of reducing peoples rights in order to create "fairness"? Yes. The UK government recently passed a law saying that tips can no longer be used to make up the minimum wage. Some have pointed out that as a result, some employers may find their labour costs rise, and may choose to reduce their staff. So some people may be denied the right to a job, simply because that things are being made more fair.
And do people have the freedom to create a situation where things are not fair- that if you work for a greater standard, you've earned it? Sure. Many of the ex-contestants on Big Brother have gained celebrity status, been paid very well for many public appearances, and have gained jobs on TV that earned them a fortune. It really can be that simple to cast yourself into the celebrity world, and become rich almost overnight. Same for some of the people on The Apprentice.
Or is society the pursuit of a world of equality that itself could be considered unfair? I don't know what that means. | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 10/17/2009 1:22:37 AM | From Stephen Crane's War is Kind
A man said to the Universe, 'Sir, I exist!'
'However that may be,' came the reply
'That fact has not created in me a sense of obligation'.
There is no fairness, there are no rights, beyond what we deem them to be. | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 11/13/2009 12:28:53 AM | | Life is not fair, and the only right that exists is the right to die. All else is a privlege which can be granted, or withdrawn, at the whim of someone else. True rights are self enforcing, and can not be denied. Only death fills that bill. Will your "right to life" keep you alive if a terrorist pumps a hundred, or so, bullets into your brain? Of course not. As such, you right to life does not really exist. It is a figment of the imagination. Since the allegedly most holy, and universal, of all rights-the right to life-is just an illusion, so are all lesser rights. Nothing is equal either. I will never be the hoopsmaster that Michael Jordan is, and he will never be the practical pistolry expert that I am. Any time he thinks we are equal, he can attack me with is basketball, and I will defend myself with my handgun. Who do you think will win that fight? If one of us survives, and the other does not, where is the equality? Equality is another figment of the imagination. You may as well ask if the Snugglywhump will harm the Schnoogies as to ask whether rights reduce fairness...since neither fairness, rights, equality, Snugglywhumps, or Schnoogies, exist. | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 11/13/2009 12:50:57 AM | I feel sorry for and to some degree afraid of people who think rights don't exist. If I have no right to life, then I have no reason to expect anyone not to murder me. Maybe It would be most prudent of me to bump people off before they kill me. This of course will leave us constantly at war with our fellow man. Result: It would be a good means of depopulation, since only the fastest, fittest, smartest killer will survive. What a great way to reduce the overpopulation of our planet from nearly seven billion down to one, who, unable to reproduce, will be the last of his kind. At least he will die the "winner" and most "fit" to survive.
No rights...hmmmm...no trust... no communities... no civilization... no people...
Yeah, you guys are right; there are no rights (and therefore no obligation in us to respect something that doesn't exist). When should we start killing each other, or has the party already started without me? | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 11/14/2009 8:34:20 PM | I don't think the two mean the same thing. I think there has to be a distinction between the two, at least in a legal sense. The term 'fairness' is really too vague in itself and could really refer to anything. It needs more substantive content. However, if we talk about rights that arise to ensure fairness, i.e. the right to a fair trial if accused of a crime, or the right to be given a chance to know what case is being made against you by an accuser and the right to respond to the case, then we are talking about rights which have a fairly clear content and are designed to ensure fairness.
A further problem is that the concept of fairness is subjective. What is fair and just for a devout Muslim or Catholic will be different for a convinced atheist. The latter might believe it is just to kill apostates or outlaw abortion totally but the atheist would I think, strongly disagree. Different systems of politics and ethics have their different standards of what is fair and what is not and what sort of rights people should have. The Catholic Church for example, refuses to accept gay people have a right to marry, that people have a right to terminate unwanted pregnancy, or people have a right to have access to contraception. On the other hand, secular society has taken the opposite view and legislated accordingly.
I think then at least when it comes to law, the content and nature of rights should be fairly minimal and designed to shield everyone from excess abuses of power by either the government (i.e. arbitrary detention, taxation or deprivation of life, freedom, or property) or private individuals (i.e. breaking of contracts, torts, fraud, unfair and unreasonable discrimination, etc). Too many rights could just lead to over-regulation in too many areas and stifle innovation, creativity, and legitimate criticism of flawed institutions and vested interests. Deciding what is fair and what to do in a situation should be left to individuals to work out in their own circumstances without having their consciences interfered with by third parties who should mind their own business. | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 11/15/2009 5:43:20 AM | | Boo Hoo...the world is a big, bad, scary, place...and Daddy's widdle dinkums doesn't like it. Too baaaaddd. JustDukky...have you read a newspaper lately? We ARE constantly at war. War is the ONLY busness which always shows a profit. War CREATED civilization...by killing off enough of the barbarians that non-barbarians could thrive. The gentle goddess of peace can only walk safely beside the mighty god of war. With the fastest,and fittest, surviving, the population will be worth breeding with. You'd rather that only the dumbest, slowest, weakest, most diseased, survive? That would end not only civilization, but the world, in short order. If you trust: politicians, serial killers, street gangs, murderers, rapists, robbers, drug dealers, drug abusers, cheaters, bi-polars, borderline personality disorder sufferers, people who CLAIM they don't have STDs, door to door sales people, people on the internet claiming to be princes who have lost their passports & wallets, and want you to cash checks for them, etc, etc, etc, you are going to find out just how scary the world really can be. Sticking your head in the sand, and believing in fairy tales, won't help you any. Rights do not exist, and pretending that you believe they do only makes life worse for you. The whole Nazi thing was started as a matter of defending the rights of Aryan people to be free of Jewish enslavement...or so the Nazis said. The French Revolution was allegedly about bestowing The Rights Of Man upon the downtrodden peasants ...never mind that it was really just an excuse for murdering, and robbing, the aristocracy. The worst criminals, terrorists, and dictators, have always hidden behind a mask of rights. If you never learened that, you need to get a refund from every school you ever attended. They did not give you the education you paid for. | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 11/15/2009 6:45:50 AM | War CREATED civilization...by killing off enough of the barbarians that non-barbarians could thrive.
Don't you mean that war prevented civilization? It ensured the survival of the more barbaric people, who by virtue of their winning, got to call themselves "civilized" and the dead people they murdered in conquest "barbarians"
The gentle goddess of peace can only walk safely beside the mighty god of war.
War and peace can never walk side by side...one will always destroy the other.
You'd rather that only the dumbest, slowest, weakest, most diseased, survive?
I'd only take issue with what you'd consider the "fittest."
That would end not only civilization, but the world, in short order.
We've NEVER been civilized. I'm trying to get us started at it. It will be our failure to become civilized and the continuation of war that will end our species.
If you trust...you are going to find out just how scary the world really can be
Where did I say anything about trust? What could be scarier than the very real prospect of the extinction of most of the life on this planet at any moment?
Rights do not exist, and pretending that you believe they do only makes life worse for you
On the contrary. It is a life without rights and the rule of law that makes life not worth the living.
The worst criminals, terrorists, and dictators, have always hidden behind a mask of rights.
Yes, but anyone with a lick of sense knew they were lying.
Question: If we have no rights (with the corresponding obligation to observe them in others)...What makes life worth living? Are you of the opinion that it isn't? | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 11/15/2009 2:05:28 PM | | What makes life worth living is the fact that life is a training ground for the life which comes after death...as Grade School is a training for High School, and High School is a training ground for life after school. In this universe nothing is created, or destroyed. All just changes form, and/or location. After the change called death, life/ intelligence/personality-call it spirit/soul/whatever-survives,and moves on...to another planet, or parallel universe, or whatever. There it experiences things far more interesting than it ever experienced here. It is the journey through life which is what makes it worthwhile. Read the previous posts, and see that trust was first mentioned by...not I. War CREATED civilization. Try building roads, skyscrapers, farms, museums, etc, when barbarians are reularly looting, raping, pillaging, etc, the places you are trying to build in. Only by making war on the barbarians-and destroying enough of them that they can no longer raid you-can you hope to build anything. Don't believe it? Try to build a Smithsonian Library/Museum extension in The Congo. See how far you get. | |
|
| Fairness Versus Rights
Posted: 11/15/2009 2:27:22 PM | What makes life worth living is the fact that life is a training ground for the life which comes after death
There is no life after death, at least not for the one who died.
So what makes life worth living...a fantasy of another one later?
As regards the subject of the "barbarians", I'd like to point out that we didn't kill them...We put them in charge! They've been raping, pillaging and killing us ever since. This is civilization? Now who's dreaming? | |
|
|
Home
login 
