The philosophy of rights

[LeVeL]

Believe it or not I'm actually quite open-minded about most issues. I form opinions based on the information in front of me and I will defend them and on some topics its near impossible to sway me (even on guns my opinion has evolved over time and continues to do so) but on others its quite possible (anyone remember the NYC mosque thread?).

Anyways, the idea I've been struggling with lately is one of the basic concept of rights. Who decides what basic human rights consist of? Typically it's along the lines of food, shelter, and clothing, or perhaps life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, the US founding fathers included quite a lot more detail in the Bill of Rights; should that be the new standard for basic natural (God-given, if you will) human rights? What about the fact that Jefferson's side didn't want to have a list of rights at all for fear that it might appear as if the ones listed are the only ones we have (the 9th amendment ended up in the Bill as a compromise basically)?

To stick with the gun motif for a second as an example, I would agree that there need to be some restrictions - I would oppose the sale of sarin gas in big barrels at the corner hardware store. So clearly some line needs to exist on what you can and cannot legally purchase. But where should that line be drawn? I say full-auto is ok and grenades might be too but probably not rocket launchers. If someone disagrees... how can anyone say who is right and wrong?

Another example: the MA fire chief says no fireworks are allowed because you might burn someone's house down. I say that's BS - don't assume that I'm an irresponsible idiot. But then again, there certainly are plenty of those around and I wouldn't want them messing around with fireworks.

Different kind of example: welfare. On the one hand, I say get off your lazy ass and work (excluding examples of physical disabilities, mental issues, etc). On the other hand, what happens if someone say "no thanks"? Unless I am ready to let them die in a sewer in the street, we end up right back where we started - growing welfare state. I'm genuinely not sure how to go about this one.

Drinking and driving example: I know people that drive better after a six-pack than others do sober. How did we come to draw the legal limit at 0.8? Why not 0.7 or 1.0? And speaking of driving, how was the 65mph interstate limit decided on? Pretty sure Hamilton in a Ferrari FXXK is safer at 150mph than some little ol' lady in an old Cadillac is at 30mph.

When it comes to laws in general, I'm willing to bet that each and every single one of us breaks some from time to time. How do we decide which to follow and which not to?

I guess what I'm getting at is that I can't really honestly support the idea of not having any rules at all where you have the right to everything. At the same time, the second you move away from that you start down a very slippery slope and end up like nanny-state England. So again, the question comes back to - where, who, and how do you draw the line? If it's a select group of people making these decisions, then who the hell are they to make them?? If it's so-called "common sense" then I'd argue that most people don't have it, rendering the term an oxymoron. What rights do we have? A lot of this is probably based on your personal moral and ethical values. I suppose the answer might very well be "42" but hence the philosophical nature of this thread.

/rant
Discuss!

 

[Labcoatguy]

History seems to go by the following progression:

1. Status quo is formed out of struggles.
2. Enough people with power agree that this is how this should be as a minimum.
3. Rights.

Effectively, rights are an echo of the time that they were formulated, which is both uninformative and arbitrary, but so are most "rights" as a concept.

There's a recent article in The Guardian about how human rights and international law, on balance, haven't really worked in protecting people who really need the protection.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

I would respond here, but I have a feeling

 

[eizbaer]

i haven't even been to the political subforum much, but somehow, on instinct, i find myself agreeing with HV's feeling
just reading "I say full-auto is ok and grenades might be too" is a huge red flag to me...

 

[Interrobang]

9 hours and George Carlin hasn?t been posted? I?m impressed FinalGear ...

In a society we have to agree on rules to follow or society falls apart. As long as society is doing well, it usually doesn?t even matter what the rules are or who makes them. But there have to be rules in place in order for people to live together. And those rules have to apply to everyone and there must be consequences for those breaking said rules.

Letting someone choose the laws he wants to follow, is like sitting a 5 year old down with a full cookie-jar and telling him cookies are not good for him and then leaving the room. Society cannot work that way. We (as people) are egoistic. But society, especially if it is quite big - like a whole country, cannot work this way.

I?m not saying every rule or law that exists is right, but generally society has to agree on a set of rules for everyone to make living together possible. And then we have to either follow those rules - or change them. If we want to be a part of a society - we cannot do as we please. We cannot pick and chose the laws we personally find alright.

 

[LeVeL]

I would respond here, but I have a feeling

I'm far too lazy to type all of that out as a troll :lol:

 

[Momentum57]

The most flagrant example of bizarre law infringing on what ought be human right is euthanasia, right to die, end of life rights ect. That HBO movie You "Don't Know Jack" really drove it home to me where I had thought it was a states rights decision into its a human right of self determination that for too long has been denied to the most vulnerable - the terminally ill.

 

[eizbaer]

punctuation

 

[ahpadt]

Most people are too stupid to understand what's best for them, therefore you need sets of rules and regulations as determined by a governing group.

The primary issue with politics (which is what I believe is the core of the issue with regards to rights) is that it's driven by groups who rarely deviate from their 'historial' point of view, thereby (in my opinion) struggle to adapt.

Believing that everyone knows exactly what's best for them is far, far too idealistic. Theory != practice.

 

[MacGuffin]

The philosophy of rights

I'd consider education one of the basic rights.

Everyone should have the right to learn anything they want, no matter what nationality, ethnicity or how wealthy they are.

If we had that now, we wouldn't have a problem with religious fundamentalists or zealots. Also all people would have a better understanding of each other.

Most problems in the world today are caused by lacks in education - doesn't matter what culture or which continent.

 

[eizbaer]

nicely said

 

[thevictor390]

I'd consider education one of the basic rights.

Everyone should have the right to learn anything they want, no matter what nationality, ethnicity or how wealthy they are.

If we had that now, we wouldn't have a problem with religious fundamentalists or zealots. Also all people would have a better understanding of each other.

Most problems in the world today are caused by lacks in education - doesn't matter what culture or which continent.

I agree with you. But don't think this would solve the problem of fundamentalists. You cannot force education on someone who does not want it.

 

[eizbaer]

i would offer the opinion that fundamentalists simply got to that place because they didn't enjoy a thorough education. certainly, they are beyond a certain point and will opose the idea of education. however, if somehow they had enjoyed a thorough education early on in their life, they certainly wouldn't have opposed. children are naturally courious and willing to learn (even if they often hate school). i would admit that parents and other defining parts of their upbringing and surroundings have a massive effect on the effectiveness of any education offered to them - and this is certianly a point that needs to be taken care of somehow.

 

[MacGuffin]

I agree with you. But don't think this would solve the problem of fundamentalists. You cannot force education on someone who does not want it.

Not immediately, no. But give it one or two generations...

 

[prizrak]

i would offer the opinion that fundamentalists simply got to that place because they didn't enjoy a thorough education. certainly, they are beyond a certain point and will opose the idea of education. however, if somehow they had enjoyed a thorough education early on in their life, they certainly wouldn't have opposed. children are naturally courious and willing to learn (even if they often hate school). i would admit that parents and other defining parts of their upbringing and surroundings have a massive effect on the effectiveness of any education offered to them - and this is certianly a point that needs to be taken care of somehow.

I believe it was on Penn & Teller's Bullshit show but there was an example (and granted its a singular example that I know of) where a Jewish guy from Brooklyn moved to Israel and became a fundamentalist Muslim. I don't quite remember his level of education but being a Brooklyn Jew I would assume at least High School.

I don't think religion (or religion like beliefs) can be mitigated by education it seems very ingrained in some people at a very core basic level, as an example my mother has 4 degrees one of them is a PhD in biology she still talks my ear off about how good/bad the horoscope is for the next week/month/yeah etc... Another example is a former co-worker, he had an Electrical Engineering degree, worked in IT for decades yet he told me at some point that it's interesting how humans can survive "off the land" because that's how god made us (Allah in his case). Yet he didn't deny evolution in any way...

Otherwise I agree education should be a right but it's far from it in the US, I got the student loans to prove it.

On the actual subject, ideally rules are created by the elected officials and reflect the general attitude of their constituents, so in a sense "society" agrees to a set of rules by electing representatives that share its values and then codify those rules into law. In that sense "rights" are "agreed" upon by the society at large, and as we know those definitions can change with time, for example slavery has not been thought of as normal in any part of the "civilized" world for over 200 years now.

 

[narf]

Alright, I'll bite a little

The whole concept of "rights" is entirely arbitrary and made up by society. One society might consider the right to education (that obviously means "affordable") a basic human right, a different society might not. Here's a hint:

Anyways, the idea I've been struggling with lately is one of the basic concept of rights. Who decides what basic human rights consist of? Typically it's along the lines of food, shelter, and clothing, or perhaps life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, the US founding fathers included quite a lot more detail in the Bill of Rights; should that be the new standard for basic natural (God-given, if you will) human rights?

They're not god-given, they're written down and agreed upon by a bunch of people, then mostly accepted by the society they live in. Take the pursuit of happiness - what the actual fuck? How do you determine whether someone was allowed to (or not) pursue happiness? Seems pretty arbitrary and specific to the mindset of the writers and their society to me.

If someone disagrees... how can anyone say who is right and wrong?

That's one of the corner stones of a Rechtsstaat. Society gives itself rules (legislative), society creates entities that enforce those rules (executive) as well as judge over disputes (judiciary). Boom, democratic branched government.

the MA fire chief says no fireworks are allowed because you might burn someone's house down. I say that's BS - don't assume that I'm an irresponsible idiot. But then again, there certainly are plenty of those around and I wouldn't want them messing around with fireworks.

Your rights end where they violate other people's rights. Where to draw that line depends on the specific example, and when in doubt it's up to the courts to draw it. Sticking to the fireworks example, do you have well-regulated militias fireworks or is it a free-for-all with mahoosive devices? Over here we have the BAM (actual acronym!) that determines what kind of fireworks may be sold for new year's. Yes, that's a load of bureaucrats and rules, but the result is that everyone everywhere(*) can use these fireworks on new year's. For example, they're regulated on how much of a BAM they can make, fuse durations, labelling, etc. - here society gave itself rules in order to exercise their rights to express themselves through BAM without violating other people's rights too much. Give and take, basically. Better than going "oh no, you might annoy someone, so no fireworks at all!"

(*)Everywhere? there are exceptions for surroundings of hospitals for example, or in places with loads historic thatched roofs (especially up here in The North). Again a weighing of your rights and the rights of others - in high-fire-risk locations the others win.

welfare. On the one hand, I say get off your lazy ass and work (excluding examples of physical disabilities, mental issues, etc). On the other hand, what happens if someone say "no thanks"? Unless I am ready to let them die in a sewer in the street, we end up right back where we started - growing welfare state. I'm genuinely not sure how to go about this one.

With the right to life you implicitly get the duty of the state to provide basic welfare. However, you also have the duty to restrict welfare to the bare minimum - else you're burdening the tax payers more than necessary. Over here the basic welfare is ridiculously low, and those only having that have severe troubles of getting by - however, it is possible to survive. Want more? Get a job. As for the obvious question of "who sets the basic welfare amount?" we're back to those branches of government. The legislative sets it, the executive implements it, and the judiciary complains to the legislative that it's too low so 10? a month get added on top

Drinking and driving example: I know people that drive better after a six-pack than others do sober. How did we come to draw the legal limit at 0.8? Why not 0.7 or 1.0? And speaking of driving, how was the 65mph interstate limit decided on? Pretty sure Hamilton in a Ferrari FXXK is safer at 150mph than some little ol' lady in an old Cadillac is at 30mph.

The numbers are pretty arbitrary, and change over time. We've lowered our legal limits a few times already, because society's consensus is that your right to drink and drive is outweighed by the right of others to not be driven into by your drunken self.
As for the FXX, you're not alone on the road. Having an FXX do 150mph where others aren't expecting it is inherently unsafe. As for the little ol' lady, I'm very much for mandatory basic health checks to maintain your license to drive. Take eye exams, we have to take a basic eye exam at 18ish to get our license... but there's no repeat at 65, 75, 80, 85, 90, ... so you could be almost blind and still have your license. However, that's a large voter base so it's hard to get a societal consensus on that.

When it comes to laws in general, I'm willing to bet that each and every single one of us breaks some from time to time. How do we decide which to follow and which not to?

Today I spent over five minutes at a red pedestrian light that turned out to be broken. After a bus, a tram, and several cars ran their red lights I decided my right of free movement outweighed the traffic laws

I guess what I'm getting at is that I can't really honestly support the idea of not having any rules at all where you have the right to everything.

If two people have every right imaginable then they don't have every right imaginable If you have the right to kill your neighbour without consequence then he doesn't have the right to life, and vice versa.

At the same time, the second you move away from that you start down a very slippery slope and end up like nanny-state England. So again, the question comes back to - where, who, and how do you draw the line? If it's a select group of people making these decisions, then who the hell are they to make them?? If it's so-called "common sense" then I'd argue that most people don't have it, rendering the term an oxymoron. What rights do we have? A lot of this is probably based on your personal moral and ethical values. I suppose the answer might very well be "42" but hence the philosophical nature of this thread.

See above for who sets the rules - society. If society as a whole wants to move away from a PC nanny state then society will move away from it eventually.

As for the slippery slope argument, that's usually bullshit fearmongering. If society restricts you to not launch a Saturn V for new year's that's not a slippery slope that will lead to tyranny with no 1st, 2nd, etc. amendments.

 

[LeVeL]

Sorry I've been MIA from this thread; I've had a lot on my plate lately.

The most flagrant example of bizarre law infringing on what ought be human right is euthanasia, right to die, end of life rights ect.

I recently saw an interesting Phil Donahue show where the guest was Milton Friedman (this episode, of course, goes back several decades). They talked about the right to commit suicide and Friedman said that he would do everything he could to stop a friend from jumping off a bridge but in the end, in terms of law, his friend should have the "right" to jump off. In cases of suicide I don't think it really matters one way or another - you can't write a fine for breaking the law to someone who is dead. Where this really comes into play is situations such as terminal illnesses.

Another example that a coworker brought up just yesterday. He told me that there is some mental disorder out there (don't have time to google it right now) that's basically the opposite of phantom limb - the individual simply hates one of his limbs and wants to get rid of it. My coworker then told me about a guy that hated his leg but, of course, laws/institutions/doctors/friends/etc kept trying to get him help. Eventually he broke down, stuck his leg into a wood chipper, and it had to be amputated. And guess what? He felt happy afterwards! No idea if this story is true but it doesn't seem very far-fetched.

Most people are too stupid to understand what's best for them, therefore you need sets of rules and regulations as determined by a governing group.

Who belongs to that group? History shows that anyone in a position of power becomes corrupted by it. Look at the US - we started off with "rulers" who created a system that barred the rich and powerful (i.e. themselves) from dictatorial behavior and a couple of centuries later we have the NSA. Not only that, but I have a problem with letting someone else decide what my rights are. At the same time, I oppose anarchy. See the problem I'm having here? :lol:

I'd consider education one of the basic rights.

Everyone should have the right to learn anything they want, no matter what nationality, ethnicity or how wealthy they are.

If we had that now, we wouldn't have a problem with religious fundamentalists or zealots. Also all people would have a better understanding of each other.

Most problems in the world today are caused by lacks in education - doesn't matter what culture or which continent.

Unfortunately the question that immediately pops up is this: who decides what to teach? Or better yet, since we could easily just teach both sides of every story and have the students learn to think for themselves, how do we get rid of bias in that classroom? Besides, I doubt that someone who desires full-blown Sharia law is going to take a balanced moderate stance when teaching about Judaism or even capitalism.

Otherwise I agree education should be a right but it's far from it in the US, I got the student loans to prove it.

Another question - how much education should the state provide free of charge? Currently in the US, it's through high school; in many European countries, it's college too. What if all someone wants to do is study, rather than work? They become an engineer for free, then a doctor for free, then an economist, for free, etc.

On the actual subject, ideally rules are created by the elected officials and reflect the general attitude of their constituents, so in a sense "society" agrees to a set of rules by electing representatives that share its values and then codify those rules into law. In that sense "rights" are "agreed" upon by the society at large, and as we know those definitions can change with time, for example slavery has not been thought of as normal in any part of the "civilized" world for over 200 years now.

Ah, this is where we get really political because what you're saying here is the reason why constitutional republics exist. What happens is the constituents vote to ban freedom of speech? Is that ok with you, since they're working within the confines of the agreed-upon system?

The whole concept of "rights" is entirely arbitrary and made up by society. One society might consider the right to education (that obviously means "affordable") a basic human right, a different society might not.

They're not god-given, they're written down and agreed upon by a bunch of people, then mostly accepted by the society they live in. Take the pursuit of happiness - what the actual fuck? How do you determine whether someone was allowed to (or not) pursue happiness? Seems pretty arbitrary and specific to the mindset of the writers and their society to me.

The pursuit of happiness bit is in some of the founders' writings, not the Bill of Rights. But are some rights universal? Stepping away from politics once again and just speaking in general arbitrary terms, should we have the right to stay alive when being attacked? If someone is trying to kill me, do I have a universal right to kill them (if no other options exist) to protect my own life? (Again, not trying to get into politics with that one.)

Sticking to the fireworks example, do you have well-regulated militias fireworks or is it a free-for-all with mahoosive devices?

Massachusetts bans any and all fireworks. Other states allow them but I do not know to which extent. The feds also hand out licenses for explosives (I just learned about this yesterday actually) that allow for much more but I'm not sure if that can trump my state's anti-fireworks law.

Better than going "oh no, you might annoy someone, so no fireworks at all!"

That's what we have here. Meanwhile, when I was growing up in Russia, as elementary school kids we'd go out and buy fireworks, and then try to blow up anything from a snowman to a wooden crate we once found. The fireworks weren't very powerful but still.

With the right to life you implicitly get the duty of the state to provide basic welfare. However, you also have the duty to restrict welfare to the bare minimum - else you're burdening the tax payers more than necessary. Over here the basic welfare is ridiculously low, and those only having that have severe troubles of getting by - however, it is possible to survive. Want more? Get a job.

Ah, back to the famous "slippery slope". Here, welfare recipients get free cell phones and there have even been proposals to give them free cars. Also, every system can be cheated. I've personally seen welfare recipients in brand-new BMWs and Mercs.

As for the FXX, you're not alone on the road. Having an FXX do 150mph where others aren't expecting it is inherently unsafe.

So should I be allowed to go fast if I am alone on the road?

As for the little ol' lady, I'm very much for mandatory basic health checks to maintain your license to drive. Take eye exams, we have to take a basic eye exam at 18ish to get our license... but there's no repeat at 65, 75, 80, 85, 90, ... so you could be almost blind and still have your license. However, that's a large voter base so it's hard to get a societal consensus on that.

+1 on basic health checks.

Today I spent over five minutes at a red pedestrian light that turned out to be broken. After a bus, a tram, and several cars ran their red lights I decided my right of free movement outweighed the traffic laws

There's a light like that near my house. I've started avoiding it at night when I realized that after, say, 9pm or so, it simply never changes.

 

[prizrak]

Another question - how much education should the state provide free of charge? Currently in the US, it's through high school; in many European countries, it's college too. What if all someone wants to do is study, rather than work? They become an engineer for free, then a doctor for free, then an economist, for free, etc.

Well this is where you get into whether there is greater benefit to free secondary education vs possible "career" students. Also just because education is free doesn't mean living is, so a student would still need to have a part-time job. Making secondary education affordable (not even necessarily free) is a huge benefit to society, if for no other reason than those people tend to get higher paying jobs and if their income isn't tied up in paying off debts they will be stimulating the economy.

Ah, this is where we get really political because what you're saying here is the reason why constitutional republics exist. What happens is the constituents vote to ban freedom of speech? Is that ok with you, since they're working within the confines of the agreed-upon system?

Hence why I am an anarchist.

 

[Cavi Mike]

Rights are what's agreed upon by the majority of the general population and that's going to change from place to place.

As far as "natural rights" - there's no such thing. In the land of nature - it's eat or be eaten, kill or be killed. You think a bear gives a fuck about some law or the morality of killing your sorry ass for stepping into his territory?

 

[narf]

The pursuit of happiness bit is in some of the founders' writings, not the Bill of Rights. But are some rights universal? Stepping away from politics once again and just speaking in general arbitrary terms, should we have the right to stay alive when being attacked? If someone is trying to kill me, do I have a universal right to kill them (if no other options exist) to protect my own life? (Again, not trying to get into politics with that one.)

It's in the declaration of independence listing that as a right, no? Basically the first bit of paperwork from the new nation.

Yeah, basic human rights should be universal. Self defence is one of them, with common sense limits of adequate response for the situation you're in. For example, that dude in Missoula, Montana who shot and killed a German student entering the shooter's garage wasn't adequate self defence.

Note, I'm not expecting a qualified legal analysis before defending yourself - just basic common sense.

That's what we have here. Meanwhile, when I was growing up in Russia, as elementary school kids we'd go out and buy fireworks, and then try to blow up anything from a snowman to a wooden crate we once found. The fireworks weren't very powerful but still.

We have for-kids fireworks as well, usually sold from 12 and up all year round. Much smaller loads, only specific types, small packages, etc.

Ah, back to the famous "slippery slope". Here, welfare recipients get free cell phones and there have even been proposals to give them free cars. Also, every system can be cheated. I've personally seen welfare recipients in brand-new BMWs and Mercs.

I wasn't going for the slippery slope here... do enlighten me where that crept in.

So should I be allowed to go fast if I am alone on the road?

That's the thing, you can't assume that you're alone on the road unless it's private or closed... especially if you intend to go fast, no way to know in advance if that little old lady isn't going to pop up in a sudden. Clarkson comes to mind, exaggerating about how you have to look for miles ahead before going near the Veyron's throttle.
Same with people not indicating who say "there was nobody around to see me indicate anyway"... you don't know that. Your indicating is especially important for those you didn't see yourself because you're not going to account for them - with the indicating they can take early evasive actions.

If your road is indeed private (racetrack?) or closed, feel free to speed, not indicate, go the wrong way, whatever.

There's a light like that near my house. I've started avoiding it at night when I realized that after, say, 9pm or so, it simply never changes.

Check if there's a button to push