Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@dogma: I don't know how to respond to this, so I won't. BTW, saying "I'm older than you" is never a decent response. Either justify you're answer or don't bother posting. (Sorry, getting a little frustrated here with your vague answers.)

I think you might want to reconsider your use of /facepalm before commenting on the conversational ability of other posters.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
What I will say though is that an inatimate object (like Earth) cannot own another inatimate object. That's like saying that the gold belongs to the mountain from where it was mined from.

What would ever make you believe that people are somehow distinct from mountains?

Emperors Faithful wrote:
@JEB_Stuart: What is wrong with the 'liberty' to have a say in how your country is run?

Nothing, but why must it be considered a fundamental right?

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:@dogma: I don't know how to respond to this, so I won't. BTW, saying "I'm older than you" is never a decent response. Either justify you're answer or don't bother posting. (Sorry, getting a little frustrated here with your vague answers.)

I think you might want to reconsider your use of /facepalm before commenting on the conversational ability of other posters.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
What I will say though is that an inatimate object (like Earth) cannot own another inatimate object. That's like saying that the gold belongs to the mountain from where it was mined from.

What would ever make you believe that people are somehow distinct from mountains?

Emperors Faithful wrote:
@JEB_Stuart: What is wrong with the 'liberty' to have a say in how your country is run?

Nothing, but why must it be considered a fundamental right?

1) My *facepalm* was highlighting my exasperation. You used the whole "I'm older than you so nah" argument like it was legit.

2) People DO NOT = Mountains.
Mountains are inatimate. People/ animals are not.
Mountains do not have feelings/wishes/dreams/emotions etc. People (and I suppose animals) do.
If mankind did not use the resources to our advantge, we would be DEAD. We don't have fur or claws or fangs like the other animals. We NEEDED these resources.
(You are sounding more and more like a "Mother Earth" nut. I'm not opposed to the idea of a kind of 'sentient Earth', but if mother Earth wants to hoard her resources, keep the gold she doesn't use, the plants she dons't need to eat, then she is one selfish BI-ATCH.)

3) It is a fundamental 'right' becuase in an ideal world, everyone would get a say as to how their country and community is run. So that they aren't entirely at the mercy of some obscure dictator who does whatever the hell he wants.

Wrex wrote:So you believe that might makes right?

Personally I do not, but in a more lofty sense I do know that this can be interpreted as a relevant truth to the whole debate. Just because you are right, does not make someone wrong, but it might make them slightly less right on the whole; which could include any number of factors, but it usually limits itself to the larger group in general.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
1) My *facepalm* was highlighting my exasperation. You used the whole "I'm older than you so nah" argument like it was legit.

No I didn't. I was simply being dismissive, and snarky. Neither of which relate to serious argument.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
2) People DO NOT = Mountains.
Mountains are inatimate. People/ animals are not.
Mountains do not have feelings/wishes/dreams/emotions etc. People (and I suppose animals) do.

Why is that distinction important? Do emotions somehow legitimize action?

Emperors Faithful wrote:
If mankind did not use the resources to our advantge, we would be DEAD. We don't have fur or claws or fangs like the other animals. We NEEDED these resources.

So? What makes humanity particularly important?

Emperors Faithful wrote:
(You are sounding more and more like a "Mother Earth" nut. I'm not opposed to the idea of a kind of 'sentient Earth', but if mother Earth wants to hoard her resources, keep the gold she doesn't use, the plants she dons't need to eat, then she is one selfish BI-ATCH.)

You sound like someone who is incredibly imperceptive.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
3) It is a fundamental 'right' becuase in an ideal world, everyone would get a say as to how their country and community is run. So that they aren't entirely at the mercy of some obscure dictator who does whatever the hell he wants.

Why is that part of an ideal world?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:
Personally I do not, but in a more lofty sense I do know that this can be interpreted as a relevant truth to the whole debate. Just because you are right, does not make someone wrong, but it might make them slightly less right on the whole; which could include any number of factors, but it usually limits itself to the larger group in general.

I believe I understand what you mean, though I might come it from a different angle. In general I tend to believe that where right can be legitimately contrasted with wrong there can only be one correct position. However, there are many instances in which right and wrong do not relate conceptually (primarily in matters of morality) such that the entire issue becomes insubstantial.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:The key difference between a right and something that’s nice for government to provide is that the right doesn’t go away if it stops being popular. A right means you get it no matter what. I think education fits into that category.

I disagree.

I think that as a moral concept, a right needs to be unable to be violated without the actions of another person; since people don't have an education by default, it can't be a basic right.

I know that’s what you’re saying, but I’m asking why? Why add this consideration of ‘rights need to be something you’d have if other people weren’t around’? Why define the importance of something by whether it would exist if we there were no other people around? What value does that add to determining what are the most important rights?

What I’m saying is that that’s just complicating an issue that’s already complex enough. I’m saying that we should start with a very simple metric, ‘what are the most fundamental things that everyone should have in order to have a chance at living a good life?’

While I think having natural resources shared is the most "moral" or "correct" form of economics, I'll admit fully that our current economic systems don't mesh with it very well at all.

Because of this, I'd make pseudo-right to replace it, along the lines of "the right to make a decent living through working". In a modern, industrialized country this would mean enough money for food, water, shelter, etc, and access to healthcare and education. (Of course, if a person wanted to spend all their money on candy instead, they could.)

Sure, and the reality is that in order to give people a fair chance at finding employment that would provide them with a decent enough income to buy food, water, shelter etc they need to be educated. Therefore…

Dogma wrote:I believe I understand what you mean, though I might come it from a different angle. In general I tend to believe that where right can be legitimately contrasted with wrong there can only be one correct position. However, there are many instances in which right and wrong do not relate conceptually (primarily in matters of morality) such that the entire issue becomes insubstantial.

Perhaps my general disdain for fatalism plays a role in my opinions. I cannot imagine a world with only one truth beyond that which we understand to be fact; in this same note you could say that all things contain facts, but perspectives does play a huge role in how these facts actually relate to our lives.

Maybe there is a single answer for every question, but they always seem to only provide more questions, so in this sense it could be considered quite open ended. New answers could in fact negate previous answers by default, but the line which this travels on has no finite limit in my eyes.

I like this photo quite a bit, and though it is not the prettiest thing I have seen, it does carry some amount of truth on it's shoulders; this is my opinion .



Pretty cool though huh?

sebster wrote:I know that’s what you’re saying, but I’m asking why? Why add this consideration of ‘rights need to be something you’d have if other people weren’t around’? Why define the importance of something by whether it would exist if we there were no other people around? What value does that add to determining what are the most important rights?

It's not a matter of importance so much as it's a matter of rights themselves being, at least in my use of the term, a moral issue. Because it's tied to morality, rights only apply to relationships between people; it makes no sense to say that because you're lost in a desert your rights have been violated by space and time. However, if you have a right to water, you're denied your right by circumstance. If rights are moral infringements I don't see that as being possible.

What I’m saying is that that’s just complicating an issue that’s already complex enough. I’m saying that we should start with a very simple metric, ‘what are the most fundamental things that everyone should have in order to have a chance at living a good life?’

I think it's the fundamentalism of rights that we're disagreeing on.

Sure, and the reality is that in order to give people a fair chance at finding employment that would provide them with a decent enough income to buy food, water, shelter etc they need to be educated. Therefore…

...they need to be educated so long as it's necessary to provide them with food, water, and shelter. The distinction is whether it's the end result (decent employment) or what's currently required to get the desired result (an education) that's the right. If it's a decent job with a decent wage they need, why not make that the right? So long as education is a requirement of having that right realized it will be in step with it. If that ceases to be the case, education will no longer be associated with it, and if something else is required it will become associated with that right instead.

Orkeosaurus wrote:It's not a matter of importance so much as it's a matter of rights themselves being, at least in my use of the term, a moral issue. Because it's tied to morality, rights only apply to relationships between people; it makes no sense to say that because you're lost in a desert your rights have been violated by space and time. However, if you have a right to water, you're denied your right by circumstance. If rights are moral infringements I don't see that as being possible.

See, I view rights as a statement by society about the things that every person is entitled to as part of that society. So rights begin and end with a person’s interaction with that society. If, like you said, they go and get lost in the desert they’re not relating to society at all so exactly what guarantees they have as part of that society aren’t really relevant any more.

I think it's the fundamentalism of rights that we're disagreeing on.

I don’t think it’s the fundamentalism, but the place and purpose of rights. It seems the difference between us is really coming down to positive and negative rights, and it’s been interesting to see the underlying thoughts that lead to pretty different views.

...they need to be educated so long as it's necessary to provide them with food, water, and shelter. The distinction is whether it's the end result (decent employment) or what's currently required to get the desired result (an education) that's the right. If it's a decent job with a decent wage they need, why not make that the right? So long as education is a requirement of having that right realized it will be in step with it. If that ceases to be the case, education will no longer be associated with it, and if something else is required it will become associated with that right instead.

I think at that point its just a pragmatic thing. I think it is better to give everyone the same opportunities, help them become productive and capable members of society and then let them go and find their own way to contribute. I think that works a little better than letting people get whatever education they can get, but ensuring them that they’ll have a job at the end of it. I just think economic progress would be better helped by focussing on making everyone a valuable employee, than ensuring everyone a job whether they’re valuable or not.

sebster wrote:See, I view rights as a statement by society about the things that every person is entitled to as part of that society. So rights begin and end with a person’s interaction with that society. If, like you said, they go and get lost in the desert they’re not relating to society at all so exactly what guarantees they have as part of that society aren’t really relevant any more.

So rights only remain constant so long as the society the people live in remains similar?

Orkeosaurus wrote:So rights only remain constant so long as the society the people live in remains similar?

Yeah, rights would change over time as the priorities and other factors change.

The right to equal protection under the law, for instance, is not some inherent thing that's always been there, but as we've expanded and become a more moral society we've come to see that all people deserve the same protections regardless of gender, skin colour or whatever else. So rights have expanded to reflect that.

Other factors can lead to changes. Education wasn't as important in, say, 1850 as it is now. You could have little education and still have a fair chance at a decent life, but now a decent highschool education is important if you want to work in the trades, let alone in a white collar job. So if society values giving everyone an equal starting position, equal access to quality education should become a right.

A few basic rights/laws will probably never change. But yes, most things will change as society does...to some extent.

Seems most of us are on the same page now.

Now that there is some understanding it is time for a problematic question or two.

@Sebster- If Education becomes a right. Then who should be the overseer that such rights are protected and "enforced"?

Next,
Who decides what is to be taught?


Little questions with powerful and possibly disturbing answers.

What should be is the individual

What would be are those who have power.

Orkeosaurus wrote:...they need to be educated so long as it's necessary to provide them with food, water, and shelter. The distinction is whether it's the end result (decent employment) or what's currently required to get the desired result (an education) that's the right. If it's a decent job with a decent wage they need, why not make that the right? So long as education is a requirement of having that right realized it will be in step with it. If that ceases to be the case, education will no longer be associated with it, and if something else is required it will become associated with that right instead.

So you see rights as societal ideals made manifest?

focusedfire wrote:@Sebster- If Education becomes a right. Then who should be the overseer that such rights are protected and "enforced"?

'Overseer' is an awfully dramatic way of describing a public body accountable to a transparent, democractically elected government.

Next,
Who decides what is to be taught?

Public bodies given clear priorities by transparent, democratically elected governments.

Little questions with powerful and possibly disturbing answers.

If you're leaving in a shack stockpiling guns and keeping an eye out for the black helicopters, it's probably terrifying. But for the rest of us it isn't any different to the bodies we have now, just adequately funded to give equal quality to all kids.

Frazzled wrote:What should be is the individual

What would be are those who have power.

Ideological poppycock.

sebster wrote:Yeah, rights would change over time as the priorities and other factors change.

The right to equal protection under the law, for instance, is not some inherent thing that's always been there, but as we've expanded and become a more moral society we've come to see that all people deserve the same protections regardless of gender, skin colour or whatever else. So rights have expanded to reflect that.

Other factors can lead to changes. Education wasn't as important in, say, 1850 as it is now. You could have little education and still have a fair chance at a decent life, but now a decent highschool education is important if you want to work in the trades, let alone in a white collar job. So if society values giving everyone an equal starting position, equal access to quality education should become a right.

I see; we were approaching it from different angles.

I was thinking in terms of what rights would be applicable both to this society and any past one. (Or, if not every society which has existed, the vast majority of them.)

dogma wrote:So you see rights as societal ideals made manifest?

No, not really; there are a lot things considered ideal by society which I wouldn't say you have a right to have.

sebster wrote:

Next,
Who decides what is to be taught?

Public bodies given clear priorities by transparent, democratically elected governments.

Wait you say that and then think I'm the one touting ideological poppycock? How many democracies are there in the world? How many dictatorships?

Orkeosaurus wrote:No, not really; there are a lot things considered ideal by society which I wouldn't say you have a right to have.

When I use the phrase 'societal ideals' I don't mean it in the sense of an ideal life within a given society, but that of an ideal society as defined by that society. As in the right to self-determination when considered vis a vis social force, rather than general force.

Frazzled wrote:What should be is the individual

What would be are those who have power.

This is nonsensical. Individual either exist, or they don't. To claim that they should exist would imply an exercise of power in order to make it so.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What should be is the individual

What would be are those who have power.

This is nonsensical. Individual either exist, or they don't. To claim that they should exist would imply an exercise of power in order to make it so.

That doesn't make sense. Are you saying people don't exist? Its a simple situation. Individuals- families in this instance- no whats best for them and should be able to chart their own educational course.

What will really happen is that groups in power will decide the education. It happens here, and happanes more so in dictatorships. Farmer Yi has no input into the eductaional system or standards at North Korea High School.

dogma wrote:When I use the phrase 'societal ideals' I don't mean it in the sense of an ideal life within a given society, but that of an ideal society as defined by that society. As in the right to self-determination when considered vis a vis social force, rather than general force.

Ah. In that case, it's more what I'd see as an ideal society than what that society may see; I wouldn't see, say, feudalism as an ideal society even if there was little opposition to it from within that society itself. Or, segregation as ideal even if the majority of the population was in favor of it.

Frazzled wrote:
That doesn't make sense. Are you saying people don't exist? Its a simple situation. Individuals- families in this instance- no whats best for them and should be able to chart their own educational course.

Individuals frequently don't know anything at all. Hence parenting, social interaction, and all that other jazz which facilitates learning.

Families aren't individuals. If they are individuals, then there is no particularly compelling reason to end your understanding of the individual at the edge of the family. Hell, if families are individuals there is no compelling reason that child X should not be punished for the crimes of his parents. Hi there, hereditary right.

On to what I was saying: It doesn't make sense to posit that individuals should exist. By doing so you are necessarily operating under the premise that they don't exist. As such your statement is making an appeal which can only be acted upon through an exercise of power. If power is intrinsically bad, which it must be for your statement to be an indictment of collective action, then the individual is intrinsically bad for his reliance on it. As such, there is no particular reason to favor the individual or the collective.

Frazzled wrote:
What will really happen is that groups in power will decide the education.

Yep, and hopefully they are responsive to those who have ceded them their power.

Frazzled wrote:
It happens here, and happanes more so in dictatorships. Farmer Yi has no input into the eductaional system or standards at North Korea High School.

And? Why is that important?

Because you are saying they are rights then infering those rights are effectively determined by others in power. Thats not rights, thats dictatorship.

Frazzled wrote:Because you are saying they are rights then infering those rights are effectively determined by others in power. Thats not rights, thats dictatorship.

I never said they were rights.

But, yes, what you're talking about are still rights. Rights don't exist without social acceptance of their existence. The second you claim that they do is the same second you render them necessarily impotent.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Because you are saying they are rights then infering those rights are effectively determined by others in power. Thats not rights, thats dictatorship.

No, those are still rights. Rights don't exist without social acceptance of their existence. The second you claim that they do is the same second you render them necessarily impotent.

So rights for slaves don't exist? If thats the case "rights" adn this discussion are irrelevant. The rule of gun determines all. Fortunate for those of us who have the guns.

Frazzled wrote:
So rights for slaves don't exist? If thats the case "rights" adn this discussion are irrelevant. The rule of gun determines all. Fortunate for those of us who have the guns.

Pretty much. Though I wouldn't say its quite that simple. Physical force isn't the only means of exercising power, or even necessarily the most practical.

What's interesting about this whole debate is the fact that classifying rights as social artifacts is only problematic if you don't believe that social artifacts can be compulsive.

Rights for slaves don't exist. Thats an interesting viewpoint. Fortunately my religious oppression instructs me that that is not the case, so we must agree to disagree and I am outta here.

Up up and away (translation off to respond to the charge I'm a gun confiscating Obama lover on another thread).

OT but true story. Last semester of last degree. I had been burned out for YEARS. Took Women and the Law on a lark. Went into the class. The class was all women, mostly ANGRY women. There were two guys including me, and I was the only one with an accent. Flipped a coin before class to see if I was going to act the Limbaugh dittohead or Guevara tea sipper type. Talk about fireworks...

@Sebster-

1)Awfully dramitic or uncomfortably accurate. Your arguing symantics on a governmental regular use term in an attempt to downplay the significance of what it means when you appoint someone else to watch out for your rights. When you do such a thing it is the same thing as hopping in a car with a stranger. You are putting your fate into someone elses hands.

2)Where does such a fantasy exist. Any transparency granted by law will immediately be obfuscated by a blizzard of bueracratic paperwork. Name a single american governmental institution outside of the IRS that has clear priorities.
Your answer is ideologically correct but has no basis in the world which we live. Homo Sapiens would have to transcend to another level of existence for that ideology to apply.

3)No, the people living in the shack have already asked themselves this question and done the"Math". These questions are disturbing to the politically and philosophically unconscious masses that just go through their day to day existence. These people don't want to hassle with keeping an eye on what their gov't is doing, thus proving Stalin and Marx right on one of the points were they acrually agreed. Decadent people don't want to be bothered by handling the reign of their gov'ts and will hand those riegns over to the government thus creating the most effective tyrrany.


@Dogma-1 Point I would like to make.

Individuals frequently do know things. If they know less than they should then we can draw a quick line back to the people overseeing the education. People can only know as much as is made available to them under the model of a purely government controlled education system. What do you do when the people who are supposed to oversee your rights start to limit that right? How long before people don't know enough to even be able to stop such behavior?

Frazzled wrote:Rights for slaves don't exist.

It sounds much worse when you put it that way.

In brief, rights only exist in the sense that any given society believes they do. If there is only one society, and that society believes that slaves don't have rights, then they don't have rights. However, it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be one society, so this isn't really problematic except in the sense that it will inevitably lead to violence.

Keep in mind that I don't necessarily believe that rights don't exist, but they don't exist as phenomena arising in nature (where nature is distinct from society).

And as stated we disagree. I do believe there certain fundamental freedoms set forth for mankind: irrespective of position, power, and creed. The right to be free is the the most summary expression of that.

focusedfire wrote:@Dogma-1 Point I would like to make.

Individuals frequently do know things. If they know less than they should then we can draw a quick line back to the people overseeing the education. People can only know as much as is made available to them under the model of a purely government controlled education system.

People can only know as much as is made available to them under any model. Its simply a matter of what is controlling the flow of knowledge, and how that control is being exercised. Though it is occasionally possible to learn more than what is explained via deduction/induction. No amount of information control, natural or otherwise, can prevent that.

focusedfire wrote:
What do you do when the people who are supposed to oversee your rights start to limit that right? How long before people don't know enough to even be able to stop such behavior?

I'll respond in the form of a question: What do you do when economic class prevents limits your ability to learn?

Frazzled wrote:The right to be free is the the most summary expression of that.

But how do you interpret the right to freedom? Even a slave is free in some sense, just as we are all slaves in some sense.