10 votes

The Real Anatomy of Political Rights

The following are just some thoughts on what rights really mean in practice, emerging from a discussion on another thread. Please try to correct me if I am wrong in any point or find a flaw in my thinking if there is any.

Rights are claims to a given political power or freedom, and can only be granted real existence by persuading the collective power of society of its interest in granting that power or freedom. No individual by himself has the ability to enforce any political claim if opposed by a sufficient number of others.

Rights are the legal or formal acceptance of a political claim; they are not inherent in man or nature or in any natural conditions, and are not "provable" from argument like a scientific or mathematical postulate or claim. They don't have an objective existence in the real world, they only come into existence as a outcomes of a political process.

Power and freedom, on the other hand, each have concrete meaning in the real world. Power is what you can control, freedom is the absence of interference or control over yourself. A right is only a claim to this or that political relation (either power or freedom) between yourself and the rest of society. Any such claim can only be upheld by force, in the last resort.

Prior to force, the battle for political relations and outcomes can be waged with propaganda, argument, moralizing, rhetoric, emotional appeals, deception, or threats of violence.

The way your claims become politically real is if you can persuade others to defend them along with you, with force if necessary. "Might is right" thus becomes, Law is right. The joined might of mutual defense of the legally established political or legal relationships, between members of society. The claims are transformed into legal and actual relationships by force, and hallowed by custom and usage into 'rights' by time. People feel entitled to the rights they are accustomed to by long usage, established originally by the real power that turned the claim into the right.

These arrangements will tend to follow the actual power distribution of individuals and classes in society, so that your actual level of power and influence will be reflected in your political rights. They will also tend to be disrupted by changes, rapid or gradual, in the real underlying distribution of power between individuals and classes, due to technology or other changes. The petrified political mold will shatter if the power relationships underlying the structure move too far from the overlaying formal, legal structure. Revolution is the result (and can go in either direction).

Your argument, or appeal, for your 'rights' to society will have to be an appeal to their moral beliefs, their interests in common with yours, or their interests in not 'treading' on your claimed rights. Or all three.

Therefore they have to be reasonable, foremost, in that they make sense to other people. If you make crazy, wild claims and your moral or ethical arguments are easily refutable, they won't carry weight and will fail to persuade sufficient members of society to join in defending your claims (rights).

Secondly, they can't infringe on the basic interests of others, or they won't find any supporters.

Finally, your appeal needs to be broad enough so that the collective strength of all who subscribe to put forward the same claims actually have sufficient social, economic, and physical force to uphold the claims against the other segments of society and those opponents of your claims.

Otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Take 2

In the effort to answer accurately, I can go step by step, and even quote by quote, and if English words can convey meaning the goal may be reached.

1.
"Please try to correct me if I am wrong in any point or find a flaw in my thinking if there is any."

That is an expression of human rights. The word please is a manifestation of human rights, when it is spoken honestly, and when it is meant to ask for help. When human rights are expressed by a human being there is an offer for consideration, or a request, and human rights are in that way expressed, and connections between human beings are held in that way to strictly voluntary associations, because that is how human rights remain human, by that design, since the genetic advantage of humans being humans are expressed in that way.

I will cut and past to MS Word at this point, so as not to loose this effort to honor the request.

2.
"Rights are claims to a given political power or freedom, and can only be granted real existence by persuading the collective power of society of its interest in granting that power or freedom. No individual by himself has the ability to enforce any political claim if opposed by a sufficient number of others."

Those are only "rights" if you are speaking (in English) about "claims" and therefore you are speaking about claims, so what are rights if by using the words rights the true meaning of rights are genetic capacities of individual human beings to cooperate rather than to perpetrate crimes upon one another?

If you fail to know that there are human beings who are incapable of cooperating unless the concept of cooperation is "honor among thieves," which is a counterfeit form of cooperation, since criminals only cooperate as a secondary goal whereby the primary goal is to commit crimes upon the targeted innocent people, so the secondary goal is for the criminals to band together into a criminal gang.

If you fail to know that there are examples of inhuman beings, and therefore their versions of rights only work among them, and their versions of rights are not applicable to the targets that these criminals target for their exclusive pleasure, then you may confuse genetic, inalienable, rights, with the claims being made by inhuman beings, whereby those criminals claim that their counterfeit rights are the ONLY rights that their victims get, at the pleasure of the criminal groups, then, failure to know that, you are fooled into confusing actual, inalienable rights, with the criminal counterfeit versions.

If you fail to accurately identify these very dangerous claims made by these very dangerous inhuman beings, then your failure is not merely an individual failure, since you may now be powerless to express your rejection of such false claims of such false rights offered by such false people as that merry band of criminals.

3.
"Rights are the legal or formal acceptance of a political claim; they are not inherent in man or nature or in any natural conditions, and are not "provable" from argument like a scientific or mathematical postulate or claim. They don't have an objective existence in the real world, they only come into existence as a outcomes of a political process."

When the merry band of criminals take over the idea, concept, and workings of the power of law, the idea, the concept, and the results of the workings of law are counter, or opposite, or counterfeit compared to the actual idea, concept, and workings of law, so confusing the counterfeit version with the genuine version is the obvious result in any individual case where such confusion occurs, and when many individual human beings are confused in this way the net result of having so many confused people, misdirected in this way, is a collective sum total of all that confusion, all that misdirection, resulting in specific ways that can be easily documented in an unambiguous manner. Examples of accurate records of the massive amounts of confusion include your sentence, your paragraph, and your offering of an idea, a concept, and a offer, a plea, a voluntary contact offer, in a world of confused people who are trained very well in mindless action, absent conscience, absent thought, absent focused power of will, reactionary, routine, aggression, argument, conflict, contention, antagonism, and anything but effective work reaching for the goal of finding accurate agreement.

3.
a
"they are not inherent in man or nature"

If you are speaking about "claims" then you are not speaking about genetic capacities embodied into life forms as those life forms are born with brain functions that work as a moral conscience, or a capacity to sympathize, or empathize, or to feel the thoughts of another person, or to know the injuries of another person as if those injuries are your injuries, on and on, in a way that drives human behavior.

Where, from what source, are these ideas that claim that rights are no more than claims? Is it possible that there are rights that are of genetic origin? If so, if there are rights that are of genetic origin, then are these genetic forms of rights in any way connected to these man made claims of rights? If there are two rights, one set of rights being claims, where the origin of these rights are individual human beings who may, or may not have brains that have the required circuits necessary for sympathy, empathy, and a working moral conscience, those claims from those people being one form or rights, and if there are a second set of rights that are inalienable among those who may, or may not have that same brain function called human conscience, then which set of rights, now that it is know that there are two sets, which set of rights are productive, conducive, amiable, applicable, workable, reasonable, and agreeable with human peace, prosperity, and happiness for now, for us, and on into the future for posterity, and which set of rights only work out well for people who lie, cheat, steal, rap, kidnap, slave trade, torture, and mass murder for fun and profit?

4.
"Power and freedom, on the other hand, each have concrete meaning in the real world. Power is what you can control, freedom is the absence of interference or control over yourself. A right is only a claim to this or that political relation (either power or freedom) between yourself and the rest of society. Any such claim can only be upheld by force, in the last resort."

Those who are powered by deception, can be those who are saying things like "nothing personal, just following orders, show me your papers, get on the train, your time on earth has expired, and on the way you have the right to give me your finger nails, your screams of excruciating pain" on and on. So where is the origin of any power that you see as being this power each individual human being is power by in any case whatsoever?

If there is only one set of rights, those rights that are claims being made by a few people who may be called politicians, or high paid liars, or criminals with badges, or Legal Criminals, and that is the only set of rights acknowledged by anyone, anyone with power, then the result is that there are many people who are powered by that single set of rights.

That single set of rights, being those claims made by those Legal Criminals, are counterfeit rights, false rights, and those false rights can be known to be false because those false rights power people towards their own destruction in accurately measurable ways.

True rights, the genuine articles, the non-counterfeit set, are those rights that are always known by the fact that they are always the same set of rights agreed upon by every volunteer in every human group NOT formed for the purpose of destruction, or not formed as a criminal organization, or not formed for the hidden goal of enslaving targeted, and innocent, victims.

The counterfeit version of rights form Master/Slave associations or Involuntary Associations as a RULE, with no exceptions to the RULE of counterfeit claims called rights.

The true, natural law, inalienable, rights form strictly voluntary associations that must include a mechanism by which the volunteers are more powerful than the criminals, otherwise these rights are powerless against destruction by the frauds, extortionists, and Legal Criminals who invent, produced, and maintain their false claims of false rights and their false money.

The concept of knowing friend from foe, in any case where individual human beings meet, connect, associate, defines precisely this battle between Natural Rights and Man Made Claims of false rights, and any example you choose as an example, or I choose as an example, proves the case every time, without exception, unless you, or I, or anyone can offer such an example where there is one exception to the rule.

A.
Counterfeit rights are used by individual people to perpetrate crimes upon the targeted innocent people every time, that is the purpose of counterfeit rights, that is the goal, and that is the result, and in each case, every time, without exception, that is the outcome of use of counterfeit rights used by an inhuman being or criminal upon an innocent targeted victim.

B.
Natural rights always end up avoiding the injury of one person willfully injuring another person for fun and profit of the criminal person and at the expense of the innocent victim, always avoided, every time, each time, whenever natural, inalienable, rights are employed by those human beings employing natural rights.

Take any example of any human being meeting, connecting to, and associating with any other human being in any specific time, and in any specific place, and show where the above RULES produce any exceptions to the above RULES, and how would you manage to convey the truth of that exception, if you do find one?

Will you resort to deception, threat of violence, or violence upon the innocent so as to make me know that there is one exception to the RULES so stated?

You will have to access Natural Rights to arrive at the goal of conveying accurate information from you to anyone else, and if you resort to Claims of False Rights (you resort to lies, threats, and violence) to reach your goal of making me know this exception that you find to be an exception to the RULES so stated, then you prove the point, or you prove the opposite point?

5.
"Prior to force, the battle for political relations and outcomes can be waged with propaganda, argument, moralizing, rhetoric, emotional appeals, deception, or threats of violence."

The battle for dominance over human kind is exactly what it is, and it is a crime in progress, no different in principle than any crime invented by any inhuman being upon any other human being, different certainly in scale, as the battle for dominance over human kind is the inevitable battle among the criminals, as their claims of rights of access to the supply of innocent victims are always, without exception, cause for greater conflict among the criminals themselves.

When there are 2 criminals and only 1 victim left on Earth, what do you think happens?

5.
"The way your claims become politically real is if you can persuade others to defend them along with you, with force if necessary. "Might is right" thus becomes, Law is right. The joined might of mutual defense of the legally established political or legal relationships, between members of society. The claims are transformed into legal and actual relationships by force, and hallowed by custom and usage into 'rights' by time. People feel entitled to the rights they are accustomed to by long usage, established originally by the real power that turned the claim into the right."

Those words fail to accurately identify the difference in origin of rights, and those words fail to identify the opposite willful employment of force in defense compared to offense by any individual, or any group of individuals willfully employing force.

When the source of rights are those inalienable rights being the moral conscience source, NOT the man made false version of false claims of false rights (criminal rights), then those individuals powered by moral rights have no use for aggressive force, whatsoever, there is no need for aggressive force when people are powered by those inalienable rights.

When the source of rights are those false claims of criminal rights hidden behind claims of false authority then there are always, inevitably, and by design, the invention, production, and maintenance of aggressive violence upon the innocent, and only at that time will there be a sudden, clear and present danger, to the innocent, and therefore a sudden need for defensive force.

Furthermore the concept of inalienable rights if used by individual human beings, leads to the concept of deterrence, which can take many forms, such as The Declaration of Independence, whereby the criminals are informed of the fact that crime will not pay well.

6.
"These arrangements will tend to follow the actual power distribution of individuals and classes in society, so that your actual level of power and influence will be reflected in your political rights. They will also tend to be disrupted by changes, rapid or gradual, in the real underlying distribution of power between individuals and classes, due to technology or other changes. The petrified political mold will shatter if the power relationships underlying the structure move too far from the overlaying formal, legal structure. Revolution is the result (and can go in either direction)."

Society as an entity onto itself does not exist, and classes, similarly, do not exist as if one class is a being, and another class is another being, and so all of these words here in this paragraph are indications of false claims made by false people, and failure to identify the true meanings of rights may be a very serious failure yet again. Criminals create classes by creating false entities for their targeted innocent victims to bow down to, worship, and invest into by way of fraud, extortion, and very tortuous, terrifying, and horrible violence.

Criminals create these claims of false rights, and they claim that there is this entity of some mysterious power that gave them the right to claim these rights, and this particular fraud is as simple as a petty thief yelling "thief" so as to distract the targeted victims attention, as the targeted victims are then looking elsewhere for a thief while the actual thief does what the actual thief is well prepared to do with impunity.

In answer specifically to the paragraph just quoted, concerning revolution, there is a possible need to understand how well the Legal Criminals have managed to stupefy their targeted victims. The concept of revolution is only knowable as being of any measure whatsoever, only when it is contextualized within the framework of Legal Crime. If there is no crime, in other words, there is no need for any power exerted to fight crime, and therefore there is nothing for the criminals to take over, no power of law that any group of criminals can USURP, or "revolutionize," in any manner whatsoever. So this concept of "revolution" places the cart before the horse. It is the criminals who band together to reach the goal of USURPATION that constitutes the removal of government (a power in place designed to deter crime, or make crime pay less well) and in place of that power to deter crime (government) the Criminals put in place (Usurp) a Criminal Form of Government. The Criminals REVOLVE defensive government into offensive (criminal) government.

The Criminals revolutionized the concept of defensive government and turn (USURP) that defensive concept of government (deterrence of crime = don't feed the criminals = crime no longer pays well) turning, twisting, fraud, extortion, natural law into Man Made Law, or Crime made Legal, or a Monopoly of Crime enforced by ONE most powerful Criminal Cabal.

So the cart before the horse is the cart of Natural Law, or the cart of a power of deterrence against crime, a cart of not paying criminals so well for doing what they do so well, a cart of Liberty, a cart of Free Markets, being the true condition of human life, that being the cart IN FRONT OF THE horse, and when the criminals take over, when the criminals "revolutionize" the concept of Natural Law, when the criminals "revolutionize" the concept of Liberty, they, the criminals, "revolutionize" a FALSE version of Government, where the criminals make themselves the only source of POWER, and they inevitably use a Legal Money Monopoly Power to reach that goal.

So cases where Friends of Liberty retake Natural Law from the Criminals, such as the examples provided in history, where those events are called "revolutions," such as the American Revolutionary War, that is actually a Counter-Revolution, or a return to Natural Law. Gain the simple case of a thief yelling "thief" to distract the targeted victims applies here too. The thief yells "revolution" so as to steal away Liberty.

Why call it a revolution when the idea is merely to return to some semblance of sanity?

Are you just following orders without question?

7.
"Your argument, or appeal, for your 'rights' to society will have to be an appeal to their moral beliefs, their interests in common with yours, or their interests in not 'treading' on your claimed rights. Or all three."

Here again is the fundamental error, as the intended victims look away from the thief who yells "thief" and therefore the victims are powerless against the thief, so there is no deterrence against crime, and crimes pays well.

Rights are inalienable, to take away inalienable rights is to commit a crime. A crime is a crime. The criminals claim that rights are man enforcing something upon man. What is a man doing when a man enforces something upon a man? There is a word for that in English and it isn't rights. The word is CRIME.

Morality is not a belief. Morality is a genetic construction of brain functions that occur within examples of human beings who have this power of knowing how an injury to another person exists in the other person. Morality is expressed with English words such as empathy, sympathy, The Golden Rule, equity, peace, harmony, cooperation, voluntary association, honesty, justice, honor, and Liberty, whereby people think things along these lines, do things along these lines, find agreement, reach for agreement, and agree, even if every experiment to find agreement, along the way, to this exact point in time and place, the only agreement found is to agree to disagree until such time as an agreement can be discovered.

To claim that morality is merely belief, is to counterfeit the words in English that are meant to find agreement as to what morality is, in fact.

There are many efforts done by many individuals when seeking to find out exactly what is morality, including studies that study brain functions of normal human beings compared to abnormal human beings where the abnormal human beings are labeled with accurate labels such as psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, and nihilists, whereby these accurately identified abnormal human beings act exceptionally destructive of life, and in many cases the pleasure centers of the brain are triggered when these inhuman beings are busy torturing and murdering, or destroying life.

Morality = life is good = pursuit of happiness = productive

Is everyone possessed with a firm belief in Morality?

Yes?

How about the criminals?

Happiness is an innocent scream as another lifeless body is thrown onto the pile of murder victims?

If you are now possessed with the infection of nihilism, it may be a good time to understand exactly where that infection has invaded and occupied your mind.

8.
"Therefore they have to be reasonable, foremost, in that they make sense to other people. If you make crazy, wild claims and your moral or ethical arguments are easily refutable, they won't carry weight and will fail to persuade sufficient members of society to join in defending your claims (rights)."

Once the infection of falsehood takes over a human mind there is almost no way out of that unfortunate situation because the infection is self-defeating. There is within the infection a control by which the infected person is made to believe that the infection itself must be defended at all cost, and that any power of any measure that threatens to remove the infection is to be feared, and defended against, without limit.

Any form of exposure of the lie is seen as an attack upon the person who is infected, and therefore the infection inspires the person to shun any form of exposure of the lie.

This is remarkably effective, and it is manifest in many forms such as the belief in paying National Debt with Federal Reserve Notes.

This:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." Thomas Paine Common Sense 1776

National Debt is a flow of power flowing from anyone in America who can still produce something worth stealing, and that power flows to The International Monetary FUND, and that POWER is then used to Start World War III, where The Chinese "Leadership" is on the schedule to "Win" and American will then be paying National Debt INCREASES, for having failed to "Win" the next World War.

The current single World Reserve Currency is The Federal Reserve Note.

That is currently being phased out, on purpose, so as to phase in a revolutionary replacement, which will be much better for the few who make money on the revolutionary replacement, and much worse for all those fools who are fooled into paying National Debt.

Obey

That is the order.

You don't have to take my accurate words on this, offered honest, offered honorably, to anyone caring to know.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

"Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

9.
"Secondly, they can't infringe on the basic interests of others, or they won't find any supporters."

Infringement has a basis in fact, what is that basis? If that basis in fact is the willful injury of an innocent person by a criminal, in fact, then knowing that fact is based upon what basis? Knowing better, as to what is, and what is not, factual, is based upon what basis?

If a natural right is to know better, then that can be known better.

"Finally, your appeal needs to be broad enough so that the collective strength of all who subscribe to put forward the same claims actually have sufficient social, economic, and physical force to uphold the claims against the other segments of society and those opponents of your claims."

That is so filled with falsehood, as far as I can tell, that is an example of this:

"Otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind!"

An appeal can be made to anyone caring to know.

An offer can be made to anyone caring to agree with the offer.

Payments of Federal Reserve Notes being paid by people who start out in the day with less of anything worth anything, and ending the day with more things worth stealing, and paying those payments to THE FUND, as National Debt, is an investment in willful destruction of life on Earth, as those payments are funding World War III and lesser horrors designed to be horrors by those who steal all that power though that deception.

Keep paying that way and the benefits of that investment will be realized in that way.

Joe

Hmm, very deep philosophical

Hmm, very deep philosophical thinking here. One thing that comes to mind after reading some of these comments is that if a right is truly inalienable, why did they have to declare and write them down in the Bill of Rights? I like to think that the rights that anyone has are whatever it is that they can physically accomplish in this natural world (god given). If someone else doesn't like it, they too have the right to do whatever it is that they can achieve to do about it. If someone does me wrong, I can turn around and do something about it in retaliation. And if my neighbors/peers don't agree with the way I handled the situation, they too can do something about it. We would have a world where everyone would respect everyone else's rights, or capabilities, to retaliate against any wrong doing. In other words, if you have no laws, you will have no crimes. Anyone that is prone to wrong doings, one way or another, will not be doing it for long.

It is better to look dumb and not be, than to look smart and not be.

Hi Bill3

Hi Bill3

hi thar little lady

hi thar little lady

Does any man - or group of men - have the right to grant Rights?

I think Bastiat pretty much summed it up.

Here's a snippet his essay on "The Law":

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts of nature precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What, then, is law?

It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural [- and equal -] right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.

For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.

Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.

Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers?

Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense.

It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

The Law
Frédéric Bastiat

You however, point out exactly what existence on the edge of tyrannical rule looks like.

And yes, in order to give it legitimacy, one must fight hard for the crumbs that fall from the plates of those who stand higher within the ranks of the overlords.

I don't find much to disagree

I don't find much to disagree with in Bastiat, from what I've read. He's pretty careful with his words.

The only thing I would say is that it is not necessary to claim that everyone has the "right" the self defense. It's almost a meaningless truism with no moral content. To say its a right, what does that even mean? If they are unable to do so, their right means nothing. If they are able to do so, their right means nothing. To say its a right is just a meaningless, private opinion on the morality of the act.

I would say, everyone has the ability to try to act in self defense, and it usually is in their interests; they have the free will to make a decision to resist slavery at risk to their own persons if they so choose. It may be in their best interests, and so, morally right from their perspective.

But it is not necessary to assume or try to prove that it is also morally obligatory on all others to accept its rightness, or to accept as binding someone else's interests or moral claims. I have no natural obligation to act in the interests of others. Nothing can compel me to do so but force if I choose not to. No one can claim I am morally bound to limit my freedom in order to protect the interests of other living things, men or animals. This obligation can only spring from an implicit or explicit social arrangement where I exchange my "good behavior" for protection from the "bad behavior" of others. In a state of nature or anarchy, its every man for himself.

To claim a moral assertion or an "ought" is binding on others is a dangerous slope to enter upon. It could be argued that everyone has the moral right to not starve to death. If this is true, then it is a direct path to justifying socialism. If you establish the precedent that someone must self limit their range of activities on moral grounds, to not hurt others, it isn't a far stretch from there to require everyone feed the poor. Neither moral claim, the socialist or the non aggressionist, is provable or unprovable.

It would be very hard for me to argue against a starving man's moral claim of a right to to feed himself, even by stealing, to call him "wrong." How could I seriously say he's wrong to steal rather than die. That does not mean I am bound to feed him or to see myself as in the wrong to protect my property.

I could never call someone immoral for stealing to feed their hungry children, but I am not morally wrong to defend my property either. Morality is subjective and rooted in the different interests of different living beings, in nature as well as among people. People are also a part of nature and animals, and in nature, interests rule morality and power determines rights for all creatures. Animal rights end where animal power ends, and with humans the only added factor is social agreements and mutual or collective action to secure the legal enforcement of political arrangements, which animals cannot do. There is no magical x factor that intrudes to make humans have rights where other living animals do not.

It is not required that there be a universal binding morality for everyone, in order for political rights to be achieved. It is not necessary for every conflict to have a right and wrong party for political rights to be enforced by a body of individuals.

I reject the moral universalism inherent in natural rights claims, and the impossible requirement of proving a moral system. I feel that by rooting out these faulty arguments, I actually strengthen the libertarian position by making its foundation real and sound, and defensible. If I have any one thing that defines me it is an intellectual conscience that does not allow me to use false and logically fallacious arguments to fool myself, or others, in order justify something I want to believe in.

- 1... A vote FOR this post is a vote AGAINST the Declaration

of Independence.

ehh.. such a weak way to

ehh.. such a weak way to argue. mad corny. stop the poop flinging and try to handle the facts and logic involved. mmkay?

Possibly...but

i would argue that "might makes control" but it doesn't make it "right". and a "right" stems from the moral authority. but people are fooled into thinking "right" just means "are allowed" instead of the moral attachment to it. slavery is an was never moral even if it was "legal".

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

I completely agree. But since

I completely agree. But since we can't prove our moral claims or even persuade others to accept them necessarily, then, as mortal creatures in material world, we have to resort to force or the threat of force to secure our interests and rights within the framework of a legal and political system. our rights only come into being when we assert them and find a real way to uphold them against those who would deny them.

.

nothing matters except what the individual decides for himself

seems like you have hit on a logical point

without others rights and language are meaningless.
I think you are making the minarchist argument-without other people to agree to your rights and to defend them you have none.
Taken too far if you depend on others for the safeguard of your rights the majority can take them away, depend not at all and your rights are meaningless.

Is that the gist?

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

sure, it is the idea that

sure, it is the idea that rights are a function of political power. but it starts of course with a persons conception of their own rights, or what they are willing to claim as their right from society, a line that they won't allow to be crossed. that conception can change with time, and people can be raised to a sense of their own liberty or reduced to a conception of themselves as property, and nature permits either. but for any claim to be meaningful, it has to be backed up by a consensus willing to use force. so it only has meaning in the context of society and political relationships.

You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

How can you be a libertarian if you don't believe in individual liberty?

Your premise that "might is right" is fallacious.

Using your line of reasoning, the Jews did not have their rights violated since the "collective" of which they were members did not grant them the right to life. Therefore, what the Nazis did was justified.

The Native Americans did not have their rights violated either. Since the immigrants from Europe possessed more might, the property rights of Native Americans did not exist. Therefore, the immigrants were justified since those rights never existed.

Further, the slaves did not have their rights violated. Since their modes of defense were inferior, they had no right to liberty. Thus, slaveholders were not in the wrong since, by your argument, they had no rights to begin with.

Just because rights are violated - even in perpetuity - does not mean that they do not exist.

Maybe you should've picked a different political philosophy if you actually believe that what the "collective" does by majority decree or by indefensible force is automatically justified. That concept certainly doesn't have anything in common with libertarianism.

Hmm. So if the above is

Hmm. So if the above is incorrect, then where do rights come from?

well the discussion is

well the discussion is happening here so I don't know what you mean. I will be on later and peruse the other thread. I know I posted a rough version of these comments over there, but the above post is a more polished and better worded exposition of my opinion.

As Michael Bolden at the

As Michael Bolden at the Tenth Amendment Center has said, and it also is written in the Declaration of Independence, certain inalienable rights come from our nature or our creator, they do not come from other people or any grouping of people (governments of any kind).

The concept of inalienable rights from our creator is THE cornerstone of rights and true freedom that was considered "self-evident" in the Declaration of Independence and guided the drafting of the Constitution to ensure that government in America would not have the power to violate those rights.

I have had the conversation with religiously atheist libertarians who I know, who came to the conclusion that because "there is no god" that rights really don't exist. They then decide that stronger contract law must be supported by government for there to be any rights. When I attempted to challenge their assertion that there is no god, they claim that "science has shown us that we have evolved..." even though they have very little actual science education, certainly not in college. Since I have a science degree from a public university, I have a better idea what the supposed "scientific argument" for the origin of life is, and how ridiculously unscientific it really is.

Sadly, people who are so willing to challenge government propaganda about economics, healthcare, war, international trade, and virtually everything else, don't realize that they've been lied to by the government-run schools about science, too. As an undergrad in college, I challenged the claims of evolution in my science classes and the teachers couldn't fault my logic and use of facts, so I got A's in their classes and graduated with honors.

I would gladly point out the logical fallacies and outright lies used to prop up evolution and the lack of observational (real) science on the subject to anyone willing to listen.

What creator? Are you in

What creator? Are you in communication with some creator?

Our society by and large believes material evolution is the creator of life. They may be wrong or right, but that is the belief that holds sway in all the power centers of society, and it endeavors to explain human nature by the science of evolutionary biology and psychology. Its explanations are often very compelling, even if the theory doesn't explain everything. It does not recognize anything called rights in the scientific literature. It recognizes interests, power, and freedom, but nothing called a right. A right is a political fact achieved by the use of powwer.

I don't know of the creator you refer to. Can you clarify?

For many decades "Our society

For many decades "Our society by and large" believed that stimulus spending grows the economy and during the same time "the belief that holds sway in all the power centers of society" was that military intervention overseas is how to bring peace to the world.

Why don't you accept that as the final word on economics and foreign policy? Because you've heard equally compelling arguments against those ideas, in as thoroughly professional terms as the Keynesians and interventionist's arguments. And it wasn't just a couple comment blocks from one person on a blog site, was it? It probably took several conversations with several people over the course of months or years for you to see the problems with Keynesianism and military interventionism, and it would take the same time and effort (with a truly open mind) to see the problems of evolutionary theory.

Evolutions explanations are "compelling" when there is nothing challenging them, just as Keynesian explanations of "animal spirits" and "sticky wages" are compelling if that's all you've heard from professional economists.

I said nothing about science recognizing rights. It doesn't. Science doesn't deal with philosophical things like freedom either, then, does it?

Are you capable of having a real discussion about actual science?

So put up your best arguments about evolution (your "our society by and large believes" nonsense is a logical fallacy, and therefore not a good argument) and I'll show you how it has never been observed to have happened, just like people make their claims about the need for stimulus spending and we show how it failed in reality.

Hey its cool to nitpick a

Hey its cool to nitpick a sentence and misconstrue its meaning. Deny evolution, fine. It certainly is not a perfect or fully adequate theory. But you failed to defend your own position. What creator are you talking about? Are you in contact with some creator?

While I don't disagree that a religious argument exists

natural rights can be argued from a secular point of view.

I downvoted you due to your evolution argument. The evolution of plants is very clear, and I would suggest you touch up on that part of evolution before you claim what you have.

My response to a religious person that disputes evolution as a way that species change over time would be to ask: What tool does god use to modify species over time? Could evolution be god's tool of creation? If not, why? Further - you being a religious person - what gives you the right to question god's methods? Have you personally talked to god regarding his method of creation? Is time-scale of the creation story in genesis in human time or god time? Is there a difference? Can a person know?

"The evolution of plants is

"The evolution of plants is very clear"...

What species of plants has been OBSERVED to change into what other species of plants?

Real science requires observation. Evolutionary "research" has been called "science" but is merely theoretical science that only exists to argue a philosophical point, not to observe, measure and explain what is actually happening in front of their eyes in nature.

If you claim that the fossil record shows it, I will say that people have lined up fossils in an order that fits their idea of evolution, despite the true chronology of their fossilization, just as they have with every animal fossil, like the so called "horse series" where supposed descendant species pre-exist their supposed ancestor species a couple different times in the supposed evolution of horses.

I wrote an extensive critique on the "real time evolution" of Galapagos finches for my Biogeography course at the state university. In the beginning there were several breeds of finches, based on categories of beak sizes, many of which interbred with each other. After 23 years of studying, measuring and cataloging each individual bird on the one island there were still the same categories of finches with different sizes of beaks, many of which interbred with each other. They called that "evolution in real time", no new species, just a theory of what they might end up becoming thousands of years from now. I pointed that out in my paper and stated that it wasn't evolution at all. I got an A for the paper with only a correction for calling the study "the best example" of evolution in real time, which the professor corrected to "one of the better examples" like the unflinching evolutionist that he is.

The evolution of plants seems clear to you because it was the only thing that you have been told and it seemed to make sense, just like one side of the story always makes sense when you only hear one side.

You are assuming that species modify over time, which is the very definition of evolution, so you are assuming that evolution happens, not giving evidence of it happening.

I don't fault you for not being able to think clearly, you were likely never allowed to think clearly about this in any schooling you had.

What is your argument of natural rights from a secular point of view?

I read Joe's argument above, and as far as I could follow it, he considers rights to be necessary to enable people to cooperate with each other. There are other ways that people are convinced to "cooperate" with each other in previous eras that had nothing to do with people's individual rights, so I think his argument is weak, but not completely wrong.

P.S. Calling me "a religious person" at the beginning of your arguments as a way of disparaging me is an illogical fallacy. I have a Bachelor of Science degree from Portland State University and no formal "religious" training. If you want to call me something, it would be more accurate to call me a "cartographic" person, because I make maps for a living.

Corn

Look up the history of corn. I'm not talking about GMOs either.

Do you refute genetic change over time? What about selective breeding? Does selective breeding affect the genetics from one generation to the next? Do different individuals pass down genetic materials to their offspring? Do you disagree that some members of a species are more likely to reproduce than others? If so, won't those that breed more have more genetic influence on future generations?

First question is the most

First question is the most obvious, so I'll get it out of the way. Has anyone observed corn change into something other than corn?

Has even human-manipulated selected breeding of (just) corn produced something other than corn? I'm also not talking about GMO, but even with GMO, that isn't genetic change of the type that creates new genetic material, it just mixes existing material around.

The problem with genetic change, whether selective breeding or natural selection or whatever, is that genetic information isn't created, it's just scrambled in a different pattern. But increase in genetic information would be necessary for "amoeba to amphibian to man" evolution.

It's the same reason that wolves CAN be selectively bred to eventually produce poodles, but poodles can't be selectively bred to ever produce wolves, no matter how long it would be tried, since poodles are at the "shallow end" of the gene pool, compared to wolves, and don't have the genes necessary to come up with wolf descendants, ever.

You've admitted evolution in your response

Through natural breeding practices, domestic dogs cannot breed successfully with wolves while domestic dogs can breed successfully with other domestic dogs. Thus, natural breeding has lead to a diversification of species which - as you describe - is non-reversible.

QED

Power of lies

I think that your ideas are flawed, false, and dangerous to life on Earth.

Rights of mankind are genetically factual and advantageous, up to a point at which other genetic mutations, which are disadvantages to the species, whereby those individuals born with those genes remove the rights of mankind, an internal power struggle within the human gene pool.

Rights of man (human conscience) versus might makes right (barbarity, savagery, self-destructive stupidity)

In other words the concept of rights is a genetic advantage, or adaptation (positive mutation over time) whereby the individual examples of the experimental species has the power necessary to reproduce and survive despite the extreme dangers that threaten survival of the species.

Rights are merely manifestations of those genetic modifications from simple life to complex life that allow the individual examples of the human species the capacity to cooperate and through cooperation the power to survive, as a species, is increased to a much greater power compared to species that have not developed the power of cooperation on the level at which the human species has grown.

Unfortunately there are other mutations in the genetics of mankind that have not been positive and those unfortunately dangerous mutations counteract the positive mutations, which are called adaptations, and therefore what exists is a species killing virus within the species genetic pool that can be called the non-cooperative genetic mutation, or the crime gene.

Rights are the labels people put on the manifestations of those genetic adaptations that afford the human species the power to cooperate, and therefore adapt, and therefore survive, against power that would destroy other species less capable of the level of adaptation, invention, production, complexity, commanded by individual human beings cooperating with other individual human beings.

There are very few examples of human being that are capable of expressing the type of behavior that are expressed by the negatively mutated versions of human beings. Those who are identifiable, genetically, physically, mentally, as sociopaths, or psychopaths, or narcissists, or nihilists, are those born without the genetic adaptations that are called names that identify them, such as a human conscience. Absent the genetic makeup that includes a human conscience there are examples of human beings not driven to cooperate, and the opposite drive is expressed by these examples, they destroy for fun and profit.

If you wish to learn more about this then I suggest reading Erich Fromm's book The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, or Robert Lindner's book Prescription for Rebellion, or even Howard Bloom's work in both The Global Brain and The Lucifer Principle.

Anyway, the concept of rights is a shared genetic adaptation which produces a method by which individual members of the species are born with the capacity to cooperate and in so doing the power of each individual to adapt to conditions of life that would otherwise destroy less capable life forms is enhanced by that power to cooperate whereby the total power of the human species is much greater than the sum of the individual examples of humans combined.

In other words, a multi-planet species, if ever one does exist, has to overcome specific limitations that limit the power of that species to adapt.

If life requires random movement of life forms to travel from one planet to another planet, then there is, unfortunately for life, not much power in that crap shoot.

Mankind has already traveled to the moon, and mankind could not have done so if all of us were criminals, having no conscience, having no power to even think about cooperating, where each human example is ever ready to slit each others throats at the slightest sign of weakness, for fun or profit.

Mankind has already managed to send communication devices to Mars.

The power to gain such advantages over rats, roaches, and lower forms of life are afforded by those genetic adaptations, those genetic advantages that are manifested in such words as human rights.

If you do not understand that then you may be fooled into thinking that the criminals in power are the one's who give, or take away, human rights, and that is a species killing error called foolishness, or stupidity, or Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question, or gullibility, or some other word that describes how that weakness is manifest in our time because too many of us have been fooled by those too few of us who are genetically destructive.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"We" means those who accurately identify how human rights are inside us when we are born. "We" does not mean those who are born without human rights inside them when they are born. Criminals do no recognize human rights, how can they, they are not born with human rights? They are born without the power to "step inside another person's shoes," and they are born with the power to torture and murder someone else who has made shoes cooperatively, and that is how they earn their way through life, they destroy, that is what they do.

Those who are born without any capacity to acknowledge human rights end up claiming that they own everyone else, inevitably, so it may be time to stop allowing those criminals to send such wisdom down the memory hole so often, at least stop paying them so well for each innocent person tortured and murdered.

Common Sense tells us, in history, to stop paying the criminals so well for lying so much, and threatening so much, and torturing so much, and destroying so much.

Stop making crime pay so well, please.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

Invest heavily in liars who lie, torturers who torture, and serial killers who murder, and other bad things, and what do you think will happen?

You might be fooled into giving up your conscience and therefore your power to acknowledge human rights?

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0471419192?tag=bullnotbull-20

http://www.amazon.com/dp/080501604X?tag=bullnotbull-20

http://www.amazon.com/Prescription-Rebellion-psychoanalysis-...

Joe

dangerous to all life on

dangerous to all life on earth?

I wrote a Giant Wall of Text

Then I hit the wrong button.

Maybe I hit the RIGHT button.

Paying criminals what the criminals demand, to "protect" and "serve" the innocent is dangerous to all life, anywhere.

Of course I can be wrong, so the right thing to do is to keep on paying the criminals to protect the innocent, right?

Joe

G. Edward Griffin's take on the subject

I think what you're saying is quite right. I had remained somewhat confused on this subject until I read an essay by Ed Griffin. It's very concise and a useful reference when one gets involved in discussions on the subject. He arrived at basically the same conclusions as you. See:
http://freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf
On page 10 of the article:
"1. THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
.......
Rights are not tangible entities that can be viewed or measured. They are abstract concepts held in the human mind. They are whatever men agree they are at a given time and place.........."
and page 11:
"RIGHTS ARE WON ON THE BATTLEFIELD
In societies that have been sheltered for many generations from war and revolution, it is easy to forget that rights are secured by military power. They may be handed to the next generation as a gift, but they always are obtained on the battlefield. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is a classic example. The men who drafted that document were
able to do so only because they represented the thirteen states that defeated the armies of Great Britain. Had they lost the War of Independence, they would have had no opportunity to write a Bill of Rights or anything else except letters of farewell before their execution. Unfortunately, Mao Zedong was right when he said that political power grows from the barrel of a gun...."

I had better add, since I have removed this from it's context, that Ed is not advocating armed revolt. His basic philosophy is "Why fight City Hall, when you can BE City Hall.

Thanks for raising the subject. I think generally, it's poorly understood and seldom thought about.

http://kidsresourcecenter.org
Fun, educational projects to inspire young minds...