This question has bugged me for a long time, particularly when I hear or read someone say that this thing or that is a RIGHT. Things like housing, health care, education, etc. I do not disagree that we need these things and that everyone should have them, but I don't believe they are a RIGHT. Why?
If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilege, or an act of charity------but it is not a RIGHT.
True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us.
So ---- whatcha think FG
What Are Our Rights
What Are Our Rights
From an American perspective we must then define "life", "liberty" and the "pursuit of possessions (oops - I mean happiness)"
IMO the definitions of those terms have changed over the past 200+ years (politically speaking).
IMO the definitions of those terms have changed over the past 200+ years (politically speaking).
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
What Are Our Rights
The discussion of rights is littered with the word "God", it's why disentangling the historical derivation is such a hard job. The people discussing it back then were, invariably, theologians.
Cutting to the root of the matter, before there were people there were no rights. Nature is red in tooth and claw. There is no idealized Eden in which lions and lambs lay down and looked after each other. The underlying fact of life is that it's nasty, brutish, and short if it's not restrained. The phrase comes from Hobbes and it's used to describe people living at war, it can stand in perfectly well for nature. Theologians interfered by using "nature" as a word in discussing rights, they appropriated it for the Nature of God. God be damned, God has no place in discussing rights. It's axiomatic that God grants no rights whatever to anything created. If we want rights we're on our own.
There is no inherent right to anything. As Eliot observed life consists of birth, copulation and death. That's all there is when it comes to brass tacks. Birth, copulation and death.
Every single right, from the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" down, derives from a common agreement to restraint. It's a social contract. Society says these are the new rules, we freely adopt them within this group of people and we'll punish any combination of people who break them. In general they're rules constraining the powerful, most especially constraining the government itself.
One of the mechanisms of restraint involves cost. It might be agreed for example, within a given society, that all children will be offered mandatory core education at the expense of society itself. That provides a universal right within that society to be given education. Or it's agreed that no person may own another which provides a universal right within that society against slavery. The level of "society" which describes these rights can be a nation or an international body such as the United Nations binding nations by treaty. They are all conscious choices, freely entered, agreed as a binding commitment by each societal group. Nothing about it is natural.
Different social philosophies exist. Some tend toward limiting the choices of individuals to what they can afford (the capitalist models), some to extending the choices of individuals to what they can achieve (the communist models). Both agree to certain minimum standards. The greatest of these is that no individual may be sacrificed in order to improve the condition of anyone else. Again, that's not a natural decision, it's a conscious choice. It's an ethical demand. It's rooted in the world's reaction to slavery, racism and the Holocaust. Before then it was an ideal, since then it results from bitter experience.
No legal right exists that hasn't been enacted by statute. No statute exists which hasn't been legislated within the democratic process. If it's a law of the European Union, for example, the British Government enacted legislation by which that European act has become legally binding in British courts. If it's a treaty obligation of the United Nations, the US government enacted legislation by which those treaty obligations became legally binding in US courts. They're all freely adopted within each respective democratic sovereign country. Individuals might stand up and say they disagree with a given right but that's the nature of democratic governance, there's no opt-out for the minority. What protects the minority is the ethical demand that they shouldn't be sacrificed, it says nothing about them not being more or less taxed or more or less restrained in their behaviour.
Whether what we're discussing is a right as opposed to "an entitlement, a privilege, or an act of charity" is a matter of definition. If you want to know what a word means you look at how it's been used over time. The rights enshrined in Magna Carta were the rights of the citizen constraining the powers of the national executive - in that case, the powers of the King of England. Not a single one of them was a natural right or a pre-existing right, it was a negotiated empowerment. Stop locking us away in oubliettes, stop arbitrary trials, that sort of thing. Lon, you might not want to call them rights, you might prefer to call them entitlements, but that doesn't change the nature of the obligation which becomes established by such legislation. The abolition of slavery established a privilege? If you like to call it that, then yes, it did. You're just promoting the privilege to be a free man at the expense of the right to be a free man. The practical consequence of either is identical, whether you call it a right or a privilege.
The simple answer is to abolish the word "right" entirely from the dictionary, since it upsets you so much. If we just discuss legally enforceable entitlements to core education or to life (in whatever restricted sense that's meant) or to racial and gender transparency in employment opportunity (again in whatever restricted sense that's meant) then fine. We can talk about the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Entitlements if you prefer it to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What matters is the consequence, not the wording. When the US pushed legislation into existence for racial equality in the fifties and sixties it involved the majority of America's Whites giving up a significant economic benefit and the electoral advantage which had allowed them to maintain it for generations. African Americans were entitled to the vote? Or African Americans had a right to the vote? Most people these days opt for "right".
True rights invariably impose an implicit obligation upon other people to provide them. Give me a for instance where it doesn't.
Cutting to the root of the matter, before there were people there were no rights. Nature is red in tooth and claw. There is no idealized Eden in which lions and lambs lay down and looked after each other. The underlying fact of life is that it's nasty, brutish, and short if it's not restrained. The phrase comes from Hobbes and it's used to describe people living at war, it can stand in perfectly well for nature. Theologians interfered by using "nature" as a word in discussing rights, they appropriated it for the Nature of God. God be damned, God has no place in discussing rights. It's axiomatic that God grants no rights whatever to anything created. If we want rights we're on our own.
There is no inherent right to anything. As Eliot observed life consists of birth, copulation and death. That's all there is when it comes to brass tacks. Birth, copulation and death.
Every single right, from the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" down, derives from a common agreement to restraint. It's a social contract. Society says these are the new rules, we freely adopt them within this group of people and we'll punish any combination of people who break them. In general they're rules constraining the powerful, most especially constraining the government itself.
One of the mechanisms of restraint involves cost. It might be agreed for example, within a given society, that all children will be offered mandatory core education at the expense of society itself. That provides a universal right within that society to be given education. Or it's agreed that no person may own another which provides a universal right within that society against slavery. The level of "society" which describes these rights can be a nation or an international body such as the United Nations binding nations by treaty. They are all conscious choices, freely entered, agreed as a binding commitment by each societal group. Nothing about it is natural.
Different social philosophies exist. Some tend toward limiting the choices of individuals to what they can afford (the capitalist models), some to extending the choices of individuals to what they can achieve (the communist models). Both agree to certain minimum standards. The greatest of these is that no individual may be sacrificed in order to improve the condition of anyone else. Again, that's not a natural decision, it's a conscious choice. It's an ethical demand. It's rooted in the world's reaction to slavery, racism and the Holocaust. Before then it was an ideal, since then it results from bitter experience.
No legal right exists that hasn't been enacted by statute. No statute exists which hasn't been legislated within the democratic process. If it's a law of the European Union, for example, the British Government enacted legislation by which that European act has become legally binding in British courts. If it's a treaty obligation of the United Nations, the US government enacted legislation by which those treaty obligations became legally binding in US courts. They're all freely adopted within each respective democratic sovereign country. Individuals might stand up and say they disagree with a given right but that's the nature of democratic governance, there's no opt-out for the minority. What protects the minority is the ethical demand that they shouldn't be sacrificed, it says nothing about them not being more or less taxed or more or less restrained in their behaviour.
Whether what we're discussing is a right as opposed to "an entitlement, a privilege, or an act of charity" is a matter of definition. If you want to know what a word means you look at how it's been used over time. The rights enshrined in Magna Carta were the rights of the citizen constraining the powers of the national executive - in that case, the powers of the King of England. Not a single one of them was a natural right or a pre-existing right, it was a negotiated empowerment. Stop locking us away in oubliettes, stop arbitrary trials, that sort of thing. Lon, you might not want to call them rights, you might prefer to call them entitlements, but that doesn't change the nature of the obligation which becomes established by such legislation. The abolition of slavery established a privilege? If you like to call it that, then yes, it did. You're just promoting the privilege to be a free man at the expense of the right to be a free man. The practical consequence of either is identical, whether you call it a right or a privilege.
The simple answer is to abolish the word "right" entirely from the dictionary, since it upsets you so much. If we just discuss legally enforceable entitlements to core education or to life (in whatever restricted sense that's meant) or to racial and gender transparency in employment opportunity (again in whatever restricted sense that's meant) then fine. We can talk about the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Entitlements if you prefer it to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What matters is the consequence, not the wording. When the US pushed legislation into existence for racial equality in the fifties and sixties it involved the majority of America's Whites giving up a significant economic benefit and the electoral advantage which had allowed them to maintain it for generations. African Americans were entitled to the vote? Or African Americans had a right to the vote? Most people these days opt for "right".
True rights invariably impose an implicit obligation upon other people to provide them. Give me a for instance where it doesn't.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
What Are Our Rights
Most interesting post spot. Cheers! Agree with the basic thrust very much.
A few quibbles: Magna Carta was not concerned with ordinary people, it was an attempt by the barons to protect themselves from the king. The Barons kept cheerfully stuffing people into oubliettes for centuries. But it WAS a very important start.
Also, as the example above suggests, some rights at least are achieved through conflict of the armed variety. Women may always have had a right to vote, but they didn't achieve it until after WW1 when it seems to have been accepted that they had "earned" it (and even then, it was only women over 30).
TS Eliot: Birth, copulation and death. Yes, but iirc that was Eliot talking about life without God. Not a very good example here, if I've remembered it right?
A few quibbles: Magna Carta was not concerned with ordinary people, it was an attempt by the barons to protect themselves from the king. The Barons kept cheerfully stuffing people into oubliettes for centuries. But it WAS a very important start.
Also, as the example above suggests, some rights at least are achieved through conflict of the armed variety. Women may always have had a right to vote, but they didn't achieve it until after WW1 when it seems to have been accepted that they had "earned" it (and even then, it was only women over 30).
TS Eliot: Birth, copulation and death. Yes, but iirc that was Eliot talking about life without God. Not a very good example here, if I've remembered it right?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
What Are Our Rights
Lon;1278341 wrote: This question has bugged me for a long time, particularly when I hear or read someone say that this thing or that is a RIGHT. Things like housing, health care, education, etc. I do not disagree that we need these things and that everyone should have them, but I don't believe they are a RIGHT. Why?
If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilege, or an act of charity------but it is not a RIGHT.
True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us.
So ---- whatcha think FG
Good question. Is there any such thing as a right? Especially as long as there is always someone who can take them away?
If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilege, or an act of charity------but it is not a RIGHT.
True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us.
So ---- whatcha think FG
Good question. Is there any such thing as a right? Especially as long as there is always someone who can take them away?
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
What Are Our Rights
Raven;1278492 wrote: Good question. Is there any such thing as a right? Especially as long as there is always someone who can take them away?
Perhaps you could list some rights that have ever been taken away, Raven? That would be interesting. Yes they exist but I'm wondering which ones you had in mind.
Perhaps you could list some rights that have ever been taken away, Raven? That would be interesting. Yes they exist but I'm wondering which ones you had in mind.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
along-for-the-ride
- Posts: 11732
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:28 pm
What Are Our Rights
I found this website delving into the concept of "our rights":
Rights are natural, inalienable and self-evident.
Clearly, there is no clear-cut answer to "What are our rights?"
Rights are natural, inalienable and self-evident.
Clearly, there is no clear-cut answer to "What are our rights?"
Life is a Highway. Let's share the Commute.
What Are Our Rights
spot;1278440 wrote: The discussion of rights is littered with the word "God", it's why disentangling the historical derivation is such a hard job. The people discussing it back then were, invariably, theologians.
Cutting to the root of the matter, before there were people there were no rights. Nature is red in tooth and claw. There is no idealized Eden in which lions and lambs lay down and looked after each other. The underlying fact of life is that it's nasty, brutish, and short if it's not restrained. The phrase comes from Hobbes and it's used to describe people living at war, it can stand in perfectly well for nature. Theologians interfered by using "nature" as a word in discussing rights, they appropriated it for the Nature of God. God be damned, God has no place in discussing rights. It's axiomatic that God grants no rights whatever to anything created. If we want rights we're on our own.
There is no inherent right to anything. As Eliot observed life consists of birth, copulation and death. That's all there is when it comes to brass tacks. Birth, copulation and death.
Every single right, from the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" down, derives from a common agreement to restraint. It's a social contract. Society says these are the new rules, we freely adopt them within this group of people and we'll punish any combination of people who break them. In general they're rules constraining the powerful, most especially constraining the government itself.
One of the mechanisms of restraint involves cost. It might be agreed for example, within a given society, that all children will be offered mandatory core education at the expense of society itself. That provides a universal right within that society to be given education. Or it's agreed that no person may own another which provides a universal right within that society against slavery. The level of "society" which describes these rights can be a nation or an international body such as the United Nations binding nations by treaty. They are all conscious choices, freely entered, agreed as a binding commitment by each societal group. Nothing about it is natural.
Different social philosophies exist. Some tend toward limiting the choices of individuals to what they can afford (the capitalist models), some to extending the choices of individuals to what they can achieve (the communist models). Both agree to certain minimum standards. The greatest of these is that no individual may be sacrificed in order to improve the condition of anyone else. Again, that's not a natural decision, it's a conscious choice. It's an ethical demand. It's rooted in the world's reaction to slavery, racism and the Holocaust. Before then it was an ideal, since then it results from bitter experience.
No legal right exists that hasn't been enacted by statute. No statute exists which hasn't been legislated within the democratic process. If it's a law of the European Union, for example, the British Government enacted legislation by which that European act has become legally binding in British courts. If it's a treaty obligation of the United Nations, the US government enacted legislation by which those treaty obligations became legally binding in US courts. They're all freely adopted within each respective democratic sovereign country. Individuals might stand up and say they disagree with a given right but that's the nature of democratic governance, there's no opt-out for the minority. What protects the minority is the ethical demand that they shouldn't be sacrificed, it says nothing about them not being more or less taxed or more or less restrained in their behaviour.
Whether what we're discussing is a right as opposed to "an entitlement, a privilege, or an act of charity" is a matter of definition. If you want to know what a word means you look at how it's been used over time. The rights enshrined in Magna Carta were the rights of the citizen constraining the powers of the national executive - in that case, the powers of the King of England. Not a single one of them was a natural right or a pre-existing right, it was a negotiated empowerment. Stop locking us away in oubliettes, stop arbitrary trials, that sort of thing. Lon, you might not want to call them rights, you might prefer to call them entitlements, but that doesn't change the nature of the obligation which becomes established by such legislation. The abolition of slavery established a privilege? If you like to call it that, then yes, it did. You're just promoting the privilege to be a free man at the expense of the right to be a free man. The practical consequence of either is identical, whether you call it a right or a privilege.
The simple answer is to abolish the word "right" entirely from the dictionary, since it upsets you so much. If we just discuss legally enforceable entitlements to core education or to life (in whatever restricted sense that's meant) or to racial and gender transparency in employment opportunity (again in whatever restricted sense that's meant) then fine. We can talk about the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Entitlements if you prefer it to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What matters is the consequence, not the wording. When the US pushed legislation into existence for racial equality in the fifties and sixties it involved the majority of America's Whites giving up a significant economic benefit and the electoral advantage which had allowed them to maintain it for generations. African Americans were entitled to the vote? Or African Americans had a right to the vote? Most people these days opt for "right".
True rights invariably impose an implicit obligation upon other people to provide them. Give me a for instance where it doesn't.
A really good response Spot, thank you. It's not so much the use of the word RIGHT that irritates me so much as the demanding tone that delivers the word. "BY GOD, IT'S MY RIGHT" etc.
Cutting to the root of the matter, before there were people there were no rights. Nature is red in tooth and claw. There is no idealized Eden in which lions and lambs lay down and looked after each other. The underlying fact of life is that it's nasty, brutish, and short if it's not restrained. The phrase comes from Hobbes and it's used to describe people living at war, it can stand in perfectly well for nature. Theologians interfered by using "nature" as a word in discussing rights, they appropriated it for the Nature of God. God be damned, God has no place in discussing rights. It's axiomatic that God grants no rights whatever to anything created. If we want rights we're on our own.
There is no inherent right to anything. As Eliot observed life consists of birth, copulation and death. That's all there is when it comes to brass tacks. Birth, copulation and death.
Every single right, from the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" down, derives from a common agreement to restraint. It's a social contract. Society says these are the new rules, we freely adopt them within this group of people and we'll punish any combination of people who break them. In general they're rules constraining the powerful, most especially constraining the government itself.
One of the mechanisms of restraint involves cost. It might be agreed for example, within a given society, that all children will be offered mandatory core education at the expense of society itself. That provides a universal right within that society to be given education. Or it's agreed that no person may own another which provides a universal right within that society against slavery. The level of "society" which describes these rights can be a nation or an international body such as the United Nations binding nations by treaty. They are all conscious choices, freely entered, agreed as a binding commitment by each societal group. Nothing about it is natural.
Different social philosophies exist. Some tend toward limiting the choices of individuals to what they can afford (the capitalist models), some to extending the choices of individuals to what they can achieve (the communist models). Both agree to certain minimum standards. The greatest of these is that no individual may be sacrificed in order to improve the condition of anyone else. Again, that's not a natural decision, it's a conscious choice. It's an ethical demand. It's rooted in the world's reaction to slavery, racism and the Holocaust. Before then it was an ideal, since then it results from bitter experience.
No legal right exists that hasn't been enacted by statute. No statute exists which hasn't been legislated within the democratic process. If it's a law of the European Union, for example, the British Government enacted legislation by which that European act has become legally binding in British courts. If it's a treaty obligation of the United Nations, the US government enacted legislation by which those treaty obligations became legally binding in US courts. They're all freely adopted within each respective democratic sovereign country. Individuals might stand up and say they disagree with a given right but that's the nature of democratic governance, there's no opt-out for the minority. What protects the minority is the ethical demand that they shouldn't be sacrificed, it says nothing about them not being more or less taxed or more or less restrained in their behaviour.
Whether what we're discussing is a right as opposed to "an entitlement, a privilege, or an act of charity" is a matter of definition. If you want to know what a word means you look at how it's been used over time. The rights enshrined in Magna Carta were the rights of the citizen constraining the powers of the national executive - in that case, the powers of the King of England. Not a single one of them was a natural right or a pre-existing right, it was a negotiated empowerment. Stop locking us away in oubliettes, stop arbitrary trials, that sort of thing. Lon, you might not want to call them rights, you might prefer to call them entitlements, but that doesn't change the nature of the obligation which becomes established by such legislation. The abolition of slavery established a privilege? If you like to call it that, then yes, it did. You're just promoting the privilege to be a free man at the expense of the right to be a free man. The practical consequence of either is identical, whether you call it a right or a privilege.
The simple answer is to abolish the word "right" entirely from the dictionary, since it upsets you so much. If we just discuss legally enforceable entitlements to core education or to life (in whatever restricted sense that's meant) or to racial and gender transparency in employment opportunity (again in whatever restricted sense that's meant) then fine. We can talk about the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Entitlements if you prefer it to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What matters is the consequence, not the wording. When the US pushed legislation into existence for racial equality in the fifties and sixties it involved the majority of America's Whites giving up a significant economic benefit and the electoral advantage which had allowed them to maintain it for generations. African Americans were entitled to the vote? Or African Americans had a right to the vote? Most people these days opt for "right".
True rights invariably impose an implicit obligation upon other people to provide them. Give me a for instance where it doesn't.
A really good response Spot, thank you. It's not so much the use of the word RIGHT that irritates me so much as the demanding tone that delivers the word. "BY GOD, IT'S MY RIGHT" etc.
What Are Our Rights
As spot pointed out, the statement by Lon,
"True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us."
is inherently false.
Rights are an agreed upon set of liberties imposed by societal rules.
We, as a society must decide what rights we own, and agree to impart those rights on each other.
I have a right to be left in peace, but only if I agree to leave you in peace, as well.
I have a right to do what I wish on my forty acres, but only so far as I am willing to allow your liberty on your own forty.
Your right to do as you please ends at the point where it interferes with the rights of others.
So, we must determine as a society what are the inalienable rights that we own, and fight all comers to insure that each and every one of us retains those rights.
"True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us."
is inherently false.
Rights are an agreed upon set of liberties imposed by societal rules.
We, as a society must decide what rights we own, and agree to impart those rights on each other.
I have a right to be left in peace, but only if I agree to leave you in peace, as well.
I have a right to do what I wish on my forty acres, but only so far as I am willing to allow your liberty on your own forty.
Your right to do as you please ends at the point where it interferes with the rights of others.
So, we must determine as a society what are the inalienable rights that we own, and fight all comers to insure that each and every one of us retains those rights.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
What Are Our Rights
Clodhopper;1278443 wrote: TS Eliot: Birth, copulation and death. Yes, but iirc that was Eliot talking about life without God. Not a very good example here, if I've remembered it right?I'd be hard pressed to find any explicit reference to God in Sweeney Agonistes. It's there in the background but it's not really part of what's under discussion. Here's the preceding passage:You see this egg
You see this egg
Well, that's life on a crocodile isle.
There's no telephones
There's no gramophones
There no motor cars
No two seaters, no six seaters,
No Citroen, no Rolls Royce.
Nothing to eat but the fruit as it grows.
Nothing to see but the palmtrees one way
And the sea the other way
Nothing to hear but the sound of the surf.
Nothing at all but three things
Bleak perhaps, but not blatantly Godless other than by implication.
You see this egg
Well, that's life on a crocodile isle.
There's no telephones
There's no gramophones
There no motor cars
No two seaters, no six seaters,
No Citroen, no Rolls Royce.
Nothing to eat but the fruit as it grows.
Nothing to see but the palmtrees one way
And the sea the other way
Nothing to hear but the sound of the surf.
Nothing at all but three things
Bleak perhaps, but not blatantly Godless other than by implication.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
What Are Our Rights
Hmm. My feeling at present is that his relationship with God underlay everything he wrote, certainly by The Wasteland.
Sweeney Agonistes pub 1926. Eliot becomes an Anglican 1927. The chronology suggests that the issue of his relationship with God was very much in his mind, and it would be surprising if it didn't appear in his work of that time. Doubt very much that he finished Sweeney Ag and then, entirely separately, decided to have a religious crisis. Isn't it arguable that Sweeny is an exploration of life without God and THAT (in Eliot's view) is what makes the piece so bleak?
I'm going to have to read it again now!
Incidentally - for the Christians on this site - May I recommend Ash Wednesday as one of the great religious poems of the C20th?
Sweeney Agonistes pub 1926. Eliot becomes an Anglican 1927. The chronology suggests that the issue of his relationship with God was very much in his mind, and it would be surprising if it didn't appear in his work of that time. Doubt very much that he finished Sweeney Ag and then, entirely separately, decided to have a religious crisis. Isn't it arguable that Sweeny is an exploration of life without God and THAT (in Eliot's view) is what makes the piece so bleak?
I'm going to have to read it again now!
Incidentally - for the Christians on this site - May I recommend Ash Wednesday as one of the great religious poems of the C20th?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
What Are Our Rights
Just to take this thread, under the same banner, but in a different direction......
Ummm..... what about workers rights? womens rights? childrens rights? wouldn't it be a little patronising to suggest that in our patriachal societies that these are given and not earned by right of birth? that these are a privilage?
I thought the UN decided a long time ago that housing food and protection both from violence and false incrimination was a right of a human being and not a privilage.
Hmmm....... thinking Ivory Castles here.
Ummm..... what about workers rights? womens rights? childrens rights? wouldn't it be a little patronising to suggest that in our patriachal societies that these are given and not earned by right of birth? that these are a privilage?
I thought the UN decided a long time ago that housing food and protection both from violence and false incrimination was a right of a human being and not a privilage.
Hmmm....... thinking Ivory Castles here.
What Are Our Rights
fuzzywuzzy;1278796 wrote: Ummm..... what about workers rights? womens rights? childrens rights? wouldn't it be a little patronising to suggest that in our patriachal societies that these are given and not earned by right of birth? that these are a privilage? Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18)
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1970/PD ... 041_en.pdf
Children Act 2004 (c. 31)
In what way are they earned by right of birth, rather than given? They none of them existed when you were born. They were designed and constructed to provide rights that had previously not existed. Perhaps you'd like to list any rights which existed prior to legislation bringing them into existence?
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1970/PD ... 041_en.pdf
Children Act 2004 (c. 31)
In what way are they earned by right of birth, rather than given? They none of them existed when you were born. They were designed and constructed to provide rights that had previously not existed. Perhaps you'd like to list any rights which existed prior to legislation bringing them into existence?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
What Are Our Rights
Human rights ideas were included in the 1919 League of Nations Covenant, decades before the adoption of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Policymakers drafting the League charter considered provisions promoting rights for minorities, religions, women, and labor. However, they only included clauses on women’s and labor rights in the Covenant. Why did policymakers include some human rights ideas and exclude others? What impact did these ideas have on the organization’s work? I argue that ideas and power both play a role, each at different stages of the policymaking process. Diplomats considered a wide range of ideas prior to the negotiation, but they proposed only the ideas that resonated strongly with their existing interests. Once the negotiation was underway, powerful states then played a key role in determining which ideas were included in the charter. As the organization began to operate, the activities in its charter acted to confine its work to those areas. The League thus pursued its women’s and labor rights mandates and took no action to promote religious or minority rights. Understanding how human rights ideas were incorporated in the League charter – well before they were widely institutionalized internationally – makes for an interesting and important case. More significantly, it provides insight into how new kinds of ideas can be included in the charters of new international organizations and ultimately pursued by these organization on the ground.
taken from the Allacademic site. Sorry there's no link I just lost it reseaching for more info. I'll find it again
My original point being that rights are given and not a right of birth as discussed by yourselves ....even in this day and age.
taken from the Allacademic site. Sorry there's no link I just lost it reseaching for more info. I'll find it again
My original point being that rights are given and not a right of birth as discussed by yourselves ....even in this day and age.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
What Are Our Rights
particularly when I hear or read someone say that this thing or that is a RIGHT. Things like housing, health care, education, etc. I do not disagree that we need these things and that everyone should have them, but I don't believe they are a RIGHT.
If this comment is the sentiment of the majority in this day and age then we are all stuffed.
If this comment is the sentiment of the majority in this day and age then we are all stuffed.
What Are Our Rights
fuzzywuzzy;1278817 wrote: My original point being that rights are given and not a right of birth as discussed by yourselves ....even in this day and age.
"wouldn't it be a little patronising to suggest that in our patriarchal societies that these are given and not earned by right of birth?"
"wouldn't it be a little patronising to suggest that in our patriarchal societies that these are given and not earned by right of birth?"
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
What Are Our Rights
These are 'rights' because we live and breathe as human beings. They shouldn't be "given" to us. They should be a right!!!
What Are Our Rights
fuzzywuzzy;1278820 wrote: If this comment is the sentiment of the majority in this day and age then we are all stuffed.
Fuzzy----I don't think you have read all the posts on this topic or you would not have replied as you did-----or ----maybe you would have. :-4
Fuzzy----I don't think you have read all the posts on this topic or you would not have replied as you did-----or ----maybe you would have. :-4
What Are Our Rights
fuzzywuzzy;1278824 wrote: These are 'rights' because we live and breathe as human beings. They shouldn't be "given" to us. They should be a right!!!
How does that fit in with "My original point being that rights are given and not a right of birth as discussed by yourselves"?
If "these are 'rights' because we live and breathe as human beings", in what way are they earned by right of birth, rather than given? None of those I listed for workers rights, women's rights and childrens rights existed when you were born. They were designed and constructed to provide rights that had previously not existed. Perhaps you'd like to list any rights which existed prior to legislation bringing them into existence?
How does that fit in with "My original point being that rights are given and not a right of birth as discussed by yourselves"?
If "these are 'rights' because we live and breathe as human beings", in what way are they earned by right of birth, rather than given? None of those I listed for workers rights, women's rights and childrens rights existed when you were born. They were designed and constructed to provide rights that had previously not existed. Perhaps you'd like to list any rights which existed prior to legislation bringing them into existence?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
What Are Our Rights
Raven;1278492 wrote: Good question. Is there any such thing as a right? Especially as long as there is always someone who can take them away?
Ravens comment .........A right can be taken away depending on which cultural society or generation you live in.
Again
particularly when I hear or read someone say that this thing or that is a RIGHT. Things like housing, health care, education, etc. I do not disagree that we need these things and that everyone should have them, but I don't believe they are a RIGHT.
How about replacing the word "right" with "responsibility".would that suit? then instead of asking if it is a right, you should be asking if it is a responsibility. We live under those who govern us, they have a responsibility .....maybe we have a 'right' to demand that 'resonsibility'.
Ravens comment .........A right can be taken away depending on which cultural society or generation you live in.
Again
particularly when I hear or read someone say that this thing or that is a RIGHT. Things like housing, health care, education, etc. I do not disagree that we need these things and that everyone should have them, but I don't believe they are a RIGHT.
How about replacing the word "right" with "responsibility".would that suit? then instead of asking if it is a right, you should be asking if it is a responsibility. We live under those who govern us, they have a responsibility .....maybe we have a 'right' to demand that 'resonsibility'.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
What Are Our Rights
Spot: Well, didn't the Americans say (in essence) that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness were Human rights that always had and always would exist, all they'd done is recognise them?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
What Are Our Rights
How about replacing the word "right" with "responsibility".would that suit? then instead of asking if it is a right, you should be asking if it is a responsibility. We live under those who govern us, they have a responsibility .....maybe we have a 'right' to demand that 'resonsibility'.
How interesting. Amazing how it shifts the "feel" of the concept...
How interesting. Amazing how it shifts the "feel" of the concept...
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
What Are Our Rights
fuzzywuzzy;1278831 wrote: Ravens comment .........A right can be taken away depending on which cultural society or generation you live in.
Again
How about replacing the word "right" with "responsibility".would that suit? then instead of asking if it is a right, you should be asking if it is a responsibility. We live under those who govern us, they have a responsibility .....maybe we have a 'right' to demand that 'resonsibility'.
Who's responsibility? The giver or the receiver? How about replacing the word RIGHT with entitled since the received benefit like health care and pensions are entitlements.
Again
How about replacing the word "right" with "responsibility".would that suit? then instead of asking if it is a right, you should be asking if it is a responsibility. We live under those who govern us, they have a responsibility .....maybe we have a 'right' to demand that 'resonsibility'.
Who's responsibility? The giver or the receiver? How about replacing the word RIGHT with entitled since the received benefit like health care and pensions are entitlements.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
What Are Our Rights
spot;1278830 wrote: How does that fit in with "My original point being that rights are given and not a right of birth as discussed by yourselves"?
If "these are 'rights' because we live and breathe as human beings", in what way are they earned by right of birth, rather than given? None of those I listed for workers rights, women's rights and childrens rights existed when you were born. They were designed and constructed to provide rights that had previously not existed. Perhaps you'd like to list any rights which existed prior to legislation bringing them into existence?
My point is that it's still discussed as "given" Take for instance the american medicare debate. There are some on this board that feel not only poor women but poor people should not have the right of free basic health care. In this day and age that's an atrocity!
It doesn't matter what particular rights were brought in when or where. My point is that still......people debate whether or not they should be implemented. whether or not they should be a "right".
ahh I see you're reading my "right of birth " in a monarchial way . I mean "right of birth" as in you're still breathing after five minutes of birth. and that includes everyone on the planet.
If "these are 'rights' because we live and breathe as human beings", in what way are they earned by right of birth, rather than given? None of those I listed for workers rights, women's rights and childrens rights existed when you were born. They were designed and constructed to provide rights that had previously not existed. Perhaps you'd like to list any rights which existed prior to legislation bringing them into existence?
My point is that it's still discussed as "given" Take for instance the american medicare debate. There are some on this board that feel not only poor women but poor people should not have the right of free basic health care. In this day and age that's an atrocity!
It doesn't matter what particular rights were brought in when or where. My point is that still......people debate whether or not they should be implemented. whether or not they should be a "right".
ahh I see you're reading my "right of birth " in a monarchial way . I mean "right of birth" as in you're still breathing after five minutes of birth. and that includes everyone on the planet.
What Are Our Rights
Clodhopper;1278832 wrote: Spot: Well, didn't the Americans say (in essence) that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness were Human rights that always had and always would exist, all they'd done is recognise them?
It is a part of the "Declaration of Independence" but the Pursuit of Happiness is not a guarantee of happiness, just the opportunity to PURSUE it.
It is a part of the "Declaration of Independence" but the Pursuit of Happiness is not a guarantee of happiness, just the opportunity to PURSUE it.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
What Are Our Rights
It is a part of the "Declaration of Independence" but the Pursuit of Happiness is not a guarantee of happiness, just the right to PURSUE it.
Yes. But the Pursuit is (according to your lads) a Right that pre-existed, and what your folk did was recognise the existence of that Right?
I'm not sure that SAYING these Rights exist MAKES them exist. But it might...
Hmm.
(Agree completely that the right to pursue happiness is very different from a right TO happiness)
Yes. But the Pursuit is (according to your lads) a Right that pre-existed, and what your folk did was recognise the existence of that Right?
I'm not sure that SAYING these Rights exist MAKES them exist. But it might...
Hmm.
(Agree completely that the right to pursue happiness is very different from a right TO happiness)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
What Are Our Rights
Lon;1278838 wrote: Who's responsibility? The giver or the receiver? How about replacing the word RIGHT with entitled since the received benefit like health care and pensions are entitlements.
and that's exactly what I thought you meant from your opening post. and that's been my point all along. You've again replaced the term RIGHT with another, "ENTITLEMENT". a right is not an entitlement.
You talk of responsibilty/rights as reciever and giver............who is ordained to "give " in the first place? those with rights over us?????
and that's exactly what I thought you meant from your opening post. and that's been my point all along. You've again replaced the term RIGHT with another, "ENTITLEMENT". a right is not an entitlement.
You talk of responsibilty/rights as reciever and giver............who is ordained to "give " in the first place? those with rights over us?????
What Are Our Rights
Clodhopper;1278846 wrote: Yes. But the Pursuit is (according to your lads) a Right that pre-existed, and what your folk did was recognise the existence of that Right?
I'm not sure that SAYING these Rights exist MAKES them exist. But it might...
Hmm.
(Agree completely that the right to pursue happiness is very different from a right TO happiness)
Two different documents---------The Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights.(As part of the U.S. Constitution)
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not sure that SAYING these Rights exist MAKES them exist. But it might...
Hmm.
(Agree completely that the right to pursue happiness is very different from a right TO happiness)
Two different documents---------The Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights.(As part of the U.S. Constitution)
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
What Are Our Rights
Two different documents---------The Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights.(As part of the U.S. Constitution)
You've lost me. Why does it make a difference which document they appear in? They are still referred to as Rights, which is the point...isn't it?
(Sorry, I'm still a bit under par and it's very possible I'm talking complete gibberish)
You've lost me. Why does it make a difference which document they appear in? They are still referred to as Rights, which is the point...isn't it?
(Sorry, I'm still a bit under par and it's very possible I'm talking complete gibberish)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
What Are Our Rights
fuzzywuzzy;1278848 wrote: and that's exactly what I thought you meant from your opening post. and that's been my point all along. You've again replaced the term RIGHT with another, "ENTITLEMENT". a right is not an entitlement.
You talk of responsibilty/rights as reciever and giver............who is ordained to "give " in the first place? those with rights over us?????
But many of the things you may call a RIGHT were never in existence until they were legislated into being by one form of government or another and at that point they became an entitlement. Prior to that they were non existent. Our debate if one wishes to call it that, is not over whether or not certain benefits are fair, reasonable or even necessary, but what do we call them.
You talk of responsibilty/rights as reciever and giver............who is ordained to "give " in the first place? those with rights over us?????
But many of the things you may call a RIGHT were never in existence until they were legislated into being by one form of government or another and at that point they became an entitlement. Prior to that they were non existent. Our debate if one wishes to call it that, is not over whether or not certain benefits are fair, reasonable or even necessary, but what do we call them.
What Are Our Rights
Great thread, Lon.
I agree totally with your excellent summing up Spot, though I'd blame the theologians for their own constructs without damning God.
Clodders - Ash Wednesday is indeed an amazing poem and a great meditation each year at that time.
I can appreciate Fuzzy's position. But rights are legal agreements - though they may arise out of our human changing perceptions of what is just and ethically good meaning right, in that sense of the word.
As for the right to be born, to copulate, to die. I'm not sure that even these are rights. Either we're born or we're not. Some of us copulate, some don't get the chance, we all die if we're born. But is it a right? It is just something that happens.
(Don't misinterpret my last comment as saying anything about 'right to life', abortion etc. I'm absolutely not. That very much comes under ethical considerations and resulting legal agreements. As does the "right" to die with dignity!!)
I agree totally with your excellent summing up Spot, though I'd blame the theologians for their own constructs without damning God.
Clodders - Ash Wednesday is indeed an amazing poem and a great meditation each year at that time.
I can appreciate Fuzzy's position. But rights are legal agreements - though they may arise out of our human changing perceptions of what is just and ethically good meaning right, in that sense of the word.
As for the right to be born, to copulate, to die. I'm not sure that even these are rights. Either we're born or we're not. Some of us copulate, some don't get the chance, we all die if we're born. But is it a right? It is just something that happens.
(Don't misinterpret my last comment as saying anything about 'right to life', abortion etc. I'm absolutely not. That very much comes under ethical considerations and resulting legal agreements. As does the "right" to die with dignity!!)
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
What Are Our Rights
AussiePam;1278908 wrote: As for the right to be born, to copulate, to die. I'm not sure that even these are rights. Either we're born or we're not. Some of us copulate, some don't get the chance, we all die if we're born. But is it a right? It is just something that happens.
It's a curious fact about your ancestry but every single one of your ancestors for the last billion years, without a single exception, managed all three. It's only in that sense that I put it forward as a definitive fact of life. It's the height of improbability, I know, but not a single one of them failed to grow to adulthood, every one of them survived the rigours and perils of childhood, right back past where your umpteenth-generation-back grandmother grazed around under the feet of dinosaurs and dodged pterodactyls by diving into its burrow.
It's a contentious observation that their siblings who didn't get that lucky aren't represented any longer on the planet. The one set apparently had a right which they exercised - if it were pure chance then one out of them out of those millions back along your family tree would have snuffed it early. What are the odds of all those descendants staying safe all that time without a break? You're a statistical miracle.
It's a curious fact about your ancestry but every single one of your ancestors for the last billion years, without a single exception, managed all three. It's only in that sense that I put it forward as a definitive fact of life. It's the height of improbability, I know, but not a single one of them failed to grow to adulthood, every one of them survived the rigours and perils of childhood, right back past where your umpteenth-generation-back grandmother grazed around under the feet of dinosaurs and dodged pterodactyls by diving into its burrow.
It's a contentious observation that their siblings who didn't get that lucky aren't represented any longer on the planet. The one set apparently had a right which they exercised - if it were pure chance then one out of them out of those millions back along your family tree would have snuffed it early. What are the odds of all those descendants staying safe all that time without a break? You're a statistical miracle.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What Are Our Rights
Yep!
You're born, you live, you copulate, you die...
No rights involved, just a description of what those ancestors of mine got up to in order to make me into the statistical miracle I am. And amazingly, I think you might also be a statistical miracle, Spot. Now what's the odds of two of us statistical miracles being members of the same internet forum?
You're born, you live, you copulate, you die...
No rights involved, just a description of what those ancestors of mine got up to in order to make me into the statistical miracle I am. And amazingly, I think you might also be a statistical miracle, Spot. Now what's the odds of two of us statistical miracles being members of the same internet forum?
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
What Are Our Rights
When most people demand their rights they usually expect others to give up some of their own. Why doesn't society demand people have responsibilities and obligations to that society. Only then can you have some rights. Criminals have their rights protected by law but they demonstrate that they do not respect the rights of others by breaking the law so why give them any at all. Maybe we should start using an "as you treat others so you will be treated yourself" system.
What Are Our Rights
FUBAR;1278982 wrote: Criminals have their rights protected by law
On the contrary. Criminals do have some of the rights that unconvicted citizens have, they have also for example the right to safe custody (which often fails to be exercised). For the most part their rights are revoked. They have no right to seek or continue in employment, to travel, to vote. They continue, once released, to be barred from foreign travel or to vote. Effectively, they're slaves once they're convicted. I note that prior to their conviction they're not criminals, unless you want to juggle dictionary definitions. I think you're misleading the thread saying otherwise.
On the contrary. Criminals do have some of the rights that unconvicted citizens have, they have also for example the right to safe custody (which often fails to be exercised). For the most part their rights are revoked. They have no right to seek or continue in employment, to travel, to vote. They continue, once released, to be barred from foreign travel or to vote. Effectively, they're slaves once they're convicted. I note that prior to their conviction they're not criminals, unless you want to juggle dictionary definitions. I think you're misleading the thread saying otherwise.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What Are Our Rights
spot;1278987 wrote: On the contrary. Criminals do have some of the rights that unconvicted citizens have, they have also for example the right to safe custody (which often fails to be exercised). For the most part their rights are revoked. They have no right to seek or continue in employment, to travel, to vote. They continue, once released, to be barred from foreign travel or to vote. Effectively, they're slaves once they're convicted. I note that prior to their conviction they're not criminals, unless you want to juggle dictionary definitions. I think you're misleading the thread saying otherwise.
I was trying to come more from the fact that criminals do not respect you or your rights more than that they are protected. Why should someone demand rights from a society whose rules they are not prepared to live within is what I was questioning and why should we give those rights without some corresponding responsibility and acceptable behaviour added to them.
I was trying to come more from the fact that criminals do not respect you or your rights more than that they are protected. Why should someone demand rights from a society whose rules they are not prepared to live within is what I was questioning and why should we give those rights without some corresponding responsibility and acceptable behaviour added to them.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
What Are Our Rights
Why should someone demand rights from a society whose rules they are not prepared to live within is what I was questioning and why should we give those rights without some corresponding responsibility and acceptable behaviour added to them.
Their "demanding" is irritating, but not really relevant. In Britain, many of these rights exist to protect us from the over-mighty state and apply to ALL where the power of the State runs: we are not supposed to be tortured, for example, or imprisioned without trial for more than a certain limited time (though that can be got round in certain circumstances for at least a while...). I'm sure you have similar Laws.
Some foul murderer claiming rights under these laws may be irritating, but the principle of the Right is more important than the urge to castrate a rapist. Once allowed to slip, these Rights can be very hard to re-establish - "the blood of patriots and tyrants" and all that...
Their "demanding" is irritating, but not really relevant. In Britain, many of these rights exist to protect us from the over-mighty state and apply to ALL where the power of the State runs: we are not supposed to be tortured, for example, or imprisioned without trial for more than a certain limited time (though that can be got round in certain circumstances for at least a while...). I'm sure you have similar Laws.
Some foul murderer claiming rights under these laws may be irritating, but the principle of the Right is more important than the urge to castrate a rapist. Once allowed to slip, these Rights can be very hard to re-establish - "the blood of patriots and tyrants" and all that...
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
What Are Our Rights
FUBAR;1279239 wrote: I was trying to come more from the fact that criminals do not respect you or your rights more than that they are protected. Why should someone demand rights from a society whose rules they are not prepared to live within is what I was questioning and why should we give those rights without some corresponding responsibility and acceptable behaviour added to them.
Which rights are these, that you claim criminals demand? A short list would help the discussion. I've already given a list of those they can't claim, as a starter. Once I have your list I'll be more able to respond to "why should we give those rights without some corresponding responsibility and acceptable behaviour added to them".
Which rights are these, that you claim criminals demand? A short list would help the discussion. I've already given a list of those they can't claim, as a starter. Once I have your list I'll be more able to respond to "why should we give those rights without some corresponding responsibility and acceptable behaviour added to them".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What Are Our Rights
fuzzywuzzy;1278831 wrote: Ravens comment .........A right can be taken away depending on which cultural society or generation you live in.
Again
How about replacing the word "right" with "responsibility".would that suit? then instead of asking if it is a right, you should be asking if it is a responsibility. We live under those who govern us, they have a responsibility .....maybe we have a 'right' to demand that 'resonsibility'.
Surely we have a responsibility to society in equal measure to society's responsibility to us. Before we demand our rights we need to make sure we fulfil our responsibilities.
Again
How about replacing the word "right" with "responsibility".would that suit? then instead of asking if it is a right, you should be asking if it is a responsibility. We live under those who govern us, they have a responsibility .....maybe we have a 'right' to demand that 'resonsibility'.
Surely we have a responsibility to society in equal measure to society's responsibility to us. Before we demand our rights we need to make sure we fulfil our responsibilities.
What Are Our Rights
spot;1278511 wrote: Perhaps you could list some rights that have ever been taken away, Raven? That would be interesting. Yes they exist but I'm wondering which ones you had in mind.
One right off the top of my head..........Your countries loss of a right to arm itself..........
:(
One right off the top of my head..........Your countries loss of a right to arm itself..........
:("If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
What Are Our Rights
BTS;1279393 wrote: One right off the top of my head..........Your countries loss of a right to arm itself..........:(
It was never a right and it wasn't lost - the people demanded it be done and the Government obeyed.
:(It was never a right and it wasn't lost - the people demanded it be done and the Government obeyed.
What Are Our Rights
Bryn Mawr;1279396 wrote: It was never a right and it wasn't lost - the people demanded it be done and the Government obeyed.
OK....Do we remember these???
Pistols Act 1903
1920 Firearms Act
1937 Firearms Act
1968 Firearms Act
And the REAL KILLER:
1997 Firearms Act
You lost your right decade by decade...But as far as never being a right you are mistaken.
The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament in December 1689 and was a re-statement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right, presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1688, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It enumerates certain rights to which subjects and permanent residents of a constitutional monarchy were thought to be entitled in the late 17th century, asserting subjects' right to petition the monarch, as well as to have arms in defence.
OK....Do we remember these???
Pistols Act 1903
1920 Firearms Act
1937 Firearms Act
1968 Firearms Act
And the REAL KILLER:
1997 Firearms Act
You lost your right decade by decade...But as far as never being a right you are mistaken.
The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament in December 1689 and was a re-statement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right, presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1688, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It enumerates certain rights to which subjects and permanent residents of a constitutional monarchy were thought to be entitled in the late 17th century, asserting subjects' right to petition the monarch, as well as to have arms in defence.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
What Are Our Rights
BTS;1279416 wrote: OK....Do we remember these???
Pistols Act 1903
1920 Firearms Act
1937 Firearms Act
1968 Firearms Act
And the REAL KILLER:
1997 Firearms Act
You lost your right decade by decade...But as far as never being a right you are mistaken.
The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament in December 1689 and was a re-statement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right, presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1688, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It enumerates certain rights to which subjects and permanent residents of a constitutional monarchy were thought to be entitled in the late 17th century, asserting subjects' right to petition the monarch, as well as to have arms in defence.
Fraid even I'm not old enough to have served under William and Mary and times were 'ard then - what they needed to survive has no relevance to the life we lead now.
As to the other legislation you mention, we wanted it and we got it - it took us a while but we made it in the end.
Pistols Act 1903
1920 Firearms Act
1937 Firearms Act
1968 Firearms Act
And the REAL KILLER:
1997 Firearms Act
You lost your right decade by decade...But as far as never being a right you are mistaken.
The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament in December 1689 and was a re-statement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right, presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1688, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It enumerates certain rights to which subjects and permanent residents of a constitutional monarchy were thought to be entitled in the late 17th century, asserting subjects' right to petition the monarch, as well as to have arms in defence.
Fraid even I'm not old enough to have served under William and Mary and times were 'ard then - what they needed to survive has no relevance to the life we lead now.
As to the other legislation you mention, we wanted it and we got it - it took us a while but we made it in the end.
What Are Our Rights
Bryn Mawr;1279426 wrote: Fraid even I'm not old enough to have served under William and Mary and times were 'ard then - what they needed to survive has no relevance to the life we lead now.
As to the other legislation you mention, we wanted it and we got it - it took us a while but we made it in the end.
Soo you are admitting you did lose the right then?
As to the other legislation you mention, we wanted it and we got it - it took us a while but we made it in the end.
Soo you are admitting you did lose the right then?
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
What Are Our Rights
BTS;1279442 wrote: Soo you are admitting you did lose the right then?
First define a "Right". The "Right" to bear arms is not inherent in our existence, it is a legislative right.
When our society was lawless and the people needed to have access to guns both for day to day protection and to ensure that the Government knew its place then we bore arms. When we, the people, decided that there were better ways of keeping the Government in check and that any use of force to do so would be counter-productive, and that society was sufficiently civilised to remove the need to bear arms for day to day protection then we changed the law.
First define a "Right". The "Right" to bear arms is not inherent in our existence, it is a legislative right.
When our society was lawless and the people needed to have access to guns both for day to day protection and to ensure that the Government knew its place then we bore arms. When we, the people, decided that there were better ways of keeping the Government in check and that any use of force to do so would be counter-productive, and that society was sufficiently civilised to remove the need to bear arms for day to day protection then we changed the law.
What Are Our Rights
BTS;1279442 wrote: Soo you are admitting you did lose the right then?
I think the thread shows that all rights are the result of legislation, not of any inherent natural law. Britain chooses, on democratic principles, to ban the private ownership of firearms and long pointy fighting knives. It's a sign of our civilized values. It would be an entirely inappropriate policy in the USA.
I think the thread shows that all rights are the result of legislation, not of any inherent natural law. Britain chooses, on democratic principles, to ban the private ownership of firearms and long pointy fighting knives. It's a sign of our civilized values. It would be an entirely inappropriate policy in the USA.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
What Are Our Rights
BTS: It's down to our different history.
Look at it as a process of taking the guns out of a society after a civil war. And our civil war didn't end half as neatly as yours did. Parliament won, but we ended with a King (William and Mary
) on the throne again, not as a Republic...
We didn't lose a right, we've got rid of a menace. Well, mostly.
Look at it as a process of taking the guns out of a society after a civil war. And our civil war didn't end half as neatly as yours did. Parliament won, but we ended with a King (William and Mary
) on the throne again, not as a Republic...We didn't lose a right, we've got rid of a menace. Well, mostly.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."