[Truth To Power]

There exist no rights that cannot be enforced through strength of arm.

There's a difference between not being effective and not existing.

Go tell a hungry lion on the Serengeti that it's your right not to get eaten.

Rights apply only amongst people. And if you were paying attention, you would have realized by now that it is only bleeding heart human sentiment that saves those hungry lions from extermination by rights-possessing people who could and would do it for no reason but their own entertainment. See the recent (imo absurd) controversy over the bow-and-arrow termination of Cecil. The consequences of having rights now make it so easy for people to exterminate the "kings" of the jungle that they now have to find ways of making it harder for themselves to kill them, because it's too boring using all the advantages rights give us.

The greatest thing about the natural world is that it doesn't give two shits about petty human sentiment. It continually flies in the face of everything the bleeding heart humanist holds dear.

What nonsense. It is precisely bleeding heart humanist sentiment that enables human beings in society not only to out-compete, but to dominate, domesticate, and if they wish, exterminate all those formerly fearsome natural predators.

Strong. Weak. No "rights". /thread.

Some people haven't figured out that rights are what make the weak stronger than the strong. It is RIGHTS that give someone as weak and physically limited as Stephen Hawking the power, if he so chose, to go to the Serengeti and mow down as many great brutes of the savannah as he wished.

[Zamuel]

Violence is a form of communication, it is employed when coercion becomes the only option available to gain required attention.

Ah, no. Violence is employed to obtain compliance, not attention.

Violence, by itself is senseless. It must be directed (intelligently) to obtain compliance. ie: a child's tantrum, striking out aimlessly, destroying randomly, calling attention to what the child's is unable to communicate - either through lack of skills or lack of adult interest. it obtains attention but seldom achieves compliance. It's fair to say compliance qualifies as a -requirement- that may employ violent communication.

The term, "fascist" came later

No ... It's Latin.

No, fascis and fasces are Latin.

So you need to quibble about your use of an English translation ?

but the basic elements of fascist society -- authoritarian, nationalistic, militaristic, oligarchic -- had been apparent in German culture for centuries before that.

Duh-yeah, like ever since the Romans conquered the Goths and the losers learned how it works.

That's a historical stretch.

No stretch involved, the Roman conquest and subsequent influence laid the foundation for western civilization[/quote]

Zam

[kobe]

The only right a human inherently has is to believe what they believe. This is only assuming someone born with a normal brain though. I do not think we can say that when we are born we are born with any individual rights. In fact we are born with our parents' life in our hands, absent of a society that dictates the rights of a person. We need society in order to enforce those rights, not the other way around.

[taltom]

Objectivity is overrated, and almost always overemphasized. Given that all humans have complex webs of biases and cognitive shortcomings, a truly clean objectivity is impossible for us. We just do the best we can. This what plagues social scientists. We can see that humans grant other humans prerogatives but they're given in different measures in different contexts. Whether they exist independently of us is just another way of restating Plato's Cave.

I see little reason to think that rights exist outside of human societies, any more than consciousness exists outside the brain exerting the consciousness. Rights are understood prerogatives that we give one another. I have the right to paint my house any color I like, barring agreements or laws to the contrary. I acquire this right only because I know my neighbors will not punish me for selecting it. If I know in advance that all of my neighbors will now shun me and splash blood on my new coloration, this makes any rights I have seem superfluous. We call things "rights" but what they are is examples of the willingness of others to overlook or ignore those actions. And all rights must come with exceptions, caveats, and interpretations. As has been noted, my right to swing my arms about is limited by the proximity of another person's nose. Rights are social constructs. My right to pollute the stream through my property may seem absolute, but will be limited by legislation about effluent running into the community's water supply. If rights had objective existence, those rights would not be so easily mutable.

[Truth To Power]

Violence is a form of communication, it is employed when coercion becomes the only option available to gain required attention.

Ah, no. Violence is employed to obtain compliance, not attention.

Violence, by itself is senseless.

Nope. Flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective physical fact. If violence were senseless, evolution would not have devoted so much effort to perfecting it.

The term, "fascist" came later

No ... It's Latin.

No, fascis and fasces are Latin.

So you need to quibble about your use of an English translation ?

It's not a translation, and you are the one quibbling for no reason.

but the basic elements of fascist society -- authoritarian, nationalistic, militaristic, oligarchic -- had been apparent in German culture for centuries before that.

Duh-yeah, like ever since the Romans conquered the Goths and the losers learned how it works.

That's a historical stretch.

No stretch involved, the Roman conquest and subsequent influence laid the foundation for western civilization

I don't minimize Rome's role in shaping western civilization, and Rome itself was pretty much fascist, but democracy had also been a characteristic of German society in pre-feudal times -- in fact it was transplanted to Britain by the Anglo-Saxon invasion -- and took a while to be suppressed in the post-feudal era.

[Zamuel]

If violence were senseless, evolution would not have devoted so much effort to perfecting it.

The personification of Evolution is absurd. Weapons can be said to have evolved, their employment has the same motivation it always has.

It's not a translation

It's the English (and German) translation of Facista (Italian) which is the modern form of the archaic Latin. It's an ancient term and concept, not a "Later" one as you misleadingly specified. The words age is certainly significant to the concept.

I don't minimize Rome's role in shaping western civilization, and Rome itself was pretty much fascist, but democracy had also been a characteristic of German society in pre-feudal times.

No, give us the name of one "Gothic Democrat" please?

transplanted to Britain by the Anglo-Saxon invasion

Monarchist Democrats? Do tell ... Name a few ?

TTP reality and it's language are your prerogative, but can we stick to this reality and English here on PoFo ... ?

Zam

[Joe Liberty]

It has been my experience that many of those who argue that there are no objective rights, do so from the viewpoint of a political agenda that necessitates denying somebody else's rights. In other words, they have a pre-formed political ideology around which they rationalize a particular view of morality. Personally I think that process should work the other way around: figure out the nature of morality and human rights, and then develop a political agenda from that.

Since individuals have brains, and "societies" do not, since groups are nothing but a collection of individuals, it seems self-evident that human rights exist, and they are truly individual, independent of anybody else. To believe otherwise is to also believe that the color white doesn't exist independently, that it can only be seen when it's sitting next to the color black. I mean, if one believes that, then one must answer exactly how many individuals gathered together does it take before any of them have individual rights? Two? Four? Ten?

It's true that laws help to recognize and enforce those rights, but laws don't define them and they certainly don't grant them (in fact, if government is granting a "right", then it's not really a right at all, it's a privilege). That was the whole point of the US Constitution, that basic rights are beyond the reach of government, that basic rights existed, inherent in each individual, before government ever came along. Some folks seem to think that if a right can be violated, or fail to be recognized by somebody else, then it's not an objective right, which is ludicrous.

[Truth To Power]

If violence were senseless, evolution would not have devoted so much effort to perfecting it.

The personification of Evolution is absurd.

Shall I go through your posts and denounce every usage of figurative language....?

You are now making a fool of yourself by pretending to hold my writing to a standard of Vulcan-like dryness and literality that your own writing can't meet, either.

Weapons can be said to have evolved, their employment has the same motivation it always has.

Which is indisputably not to gain "attention" but to compel compliance.

It's not a translation

It's the English (and German) translation of Facista (Italian) which is the modern form of the archaic Latin.

It's a modern term:

fascist (adj.) Look up fascist at Dictionary.com1921, from Italian partito nazionale fascista, the anti-communist political movement organized 1919 under Benito Mussolini (1883-1945); from Italian fascio "group, association," literally "bundle" (see fasces). Fasci "groups of men organized for political purposes" had been a feature of Sicily since c. 1895, and the 20c. totalitarian sense probably came directly from this but was influenced by the historical Roman fasces, which became the party symbol. As a noun from 1922 in English, earlier in Italian plural fascisti (1921), and until 1923 in English it often appeared in its Italian form, as an Italian word.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fascist

Which, with fine inevitability, proves me right and you wrong.

It's an ancient term and concept, not a "Later" one as you misleadingly specified.

Nope. See above. I just proved you wrong. You haven't offered any sources for your false and misleading claims.

The words age is certainly significant to the concept.

The modern political sense of the word is not the root etymological concept, as proved above.

I don't minimize Rome's role in shaping western civilization, and Rome itself was pretty much fascist, but democracy had also been a characteristic of German society in pre-feudal times.

No, give us the name of one "Gothic Democrat" please?

<yawn> We are reliant on literate sources, primarily Roman:

According to the testimony of Tacitus (Germania), some early Germanic peoples had an elective monarchy already in the 1st century.
"They choose their kings by birth, their generals for merit. These kings have not unlimited or arbitrary power, and the generals do more by example than by authority."[2]
Germanic pre-Christianization society had three levels, the king, the nobility and the free men. Their respective political influence was negotiated at the thing. According to the testimony of Tacitus,
"About minor matters the chiefs deliberate, about the more important the whole tribe. Yet even when the final decision rests with the people, the affair is always thoroughly discussed by the chiefs. [... At the assembly, w]hen the multitude think proper, they sit down armed. Silence is proclaimed by the priests, who have on these occasions the right of keeping order. Then the king or the chief, according to age, birth, distinction in war, or eloquence, is heard, more because he has influence to persuade than because he has power to command. If his sentiments displease them, they reject them with murmurs; if they are satisfied, they brandish their spears."[3][/i]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_ ... n_kingship

So, why do you do this to yourself? You know I am just going to demolish and humiliate you.

transplanted to Britain by the Anglo-Saxon invasion

Monarchist Democrats? Do tell ... Name a few ?

The House of Commons is full of them.

TTP reality and it's language are your prerogative, but can we stick to this reality and English here on PoFo ... ?

Your first mistake was in presuming to dispute with me. Now you are just making a fool of yourself.

[Saeko]

It has been my experience that many of those who argue that there are no objective rights, do so from the viewpoint of a political agenda that necessitates denying somebody else's rights. In other words, they have a pre-formed political ideology around which they rationalize a particular view of morality. Personally I think that process should work the other way around: figure out the nature of morality and human rights, and then develop a political agenda from that.

If you do this, you end up like me. All of my political beliefs are rooted in the absence of morality.

Since individuals have brains, and "societies" do not, since groups are nothing but a collection of individuals, it seems self-evident that human rights exist,

This is an enormous leap, and far from self-evident.

and they are truly individual, independent of anybody else. To believe otherwise is to also believe that the color white doesn't exist independently, that it can only be seen when it's sitting next to the color black. I mean, if one believes that, then one must answer exactly how many individuals gathered together does it take before any of them have individual rights? Two? Four? Ten?

Exactly sqrt(-1) individuals.

It's true that laws help to recognize and enforce those rights, but laws don't define them and they certainly don't grant them (in fact, if government is granting a "right", then it's not really a right at all, it's a privilege). That was the whole point of the US Constitution, that basic rights are beyond the reach of government, that basic rights existed, inherent in each individual, before government ever came along. Some folks seem to think that if a right can be violated, or fail to be recognized by somebody else, then it's not an objective right, which is ludicrous.

1. It's a nice illusion, but the reality is that rights are created and guaranteed by governments.

2. Yes all rights are effectively privileges. The difference being that rights are those privileges that a govermet guarantees to all citizens.

[Zamuel]

So, why do you do this to yourself? You know I am just going to demolish and humiliate you.

I don't diagnose online, but help is available, lots of good anti-psychotics out there too. It's probably best you avoid female therapists. Good Luck!

Since individuals have brains, and "societies" do not, since groups are nothing but a collection of individuals, it seems self-evident that human rights exist

This is an enormous leap, and far from self-evident.

No ... just a small step. I don't expect argument will convince you, epiphany is required, but, food for thought - The founding fathers of the USA recognized Joe's point and chose to make it the basis for a progressive social experiment that has endured and inspired. I suspect you're intelligent enough to recognize that those guys were not just a bunch of hacks and quacks?

Zam

[Saeko]

No ... just a small step. I don't expect argument will convince you, epiphany is required, but, food for thought - The founding fathers of the USA recognized Joe's point and chose to make it the basis for a progressive social experiment that has endured and inspired. I suspect you're intelligent enough to recognize that those guys were not just a bunch of hacks and quacks?

Zam

It is possible to do something smart while believing in a ridiculous political ideology.

[Zamuel]

It is possible to do something smart while believing in a ridiculous political ideology.

Sure ... all political ideology is inherently ridiculous.

[Stormvessel]

It's funny how people take exception to my pointing out that rights only exist through strength of arm.

Here is a good example that even inferior specimens can understand:

If you have the right to freedom of religion, and someone like me comes in and wants to shut you down and burn down your church (lovely thought), who defends your rights? The constitution is but paper.

Policemen, representing the State. That's who. And these policemen are much stronger than I. Without the strong to enforce your rights, you have no rights.

Hence, there are no rights that cannot be enforced through strength of arm. Otherwise they aren't rights, just wishes.

I have no time for the abstract. Snap out of your stupidity and see the world as it is, people.

[Zamuel]

It's funny how people take exception to my pointing out that rights only exist through strength of arm.

Yeah, your insistence on this is mildly amusing ...

I have no time for the abstract. Snap out of your stupidity and see the world as it is, people.

Ok, here's a thought for you then ... Language is an abstract means of communication ... and I agree, you're not spending any time on it. So ... - ... whose stupidity are we REALLY dealing with here ?

Zam

[Pants-of-dog]

It has been my experience that many of those who argue that there are no objective rights, do so from the viewpoint of a political agenda that necessitates denying somebody else's rights. In other words, they have a pre-formed political ideology around which they rationalize a particular view of morality. Personally I think that process should work the other way around: figure out the nature of morality and human rights, and then develop a political agenda from that.

This is not an argument. It is, at best, a sly implication that anyone who does not believe in the objective existence of human rights is somehow acting selfishly.

Since individuals have brains, and "societies" do not, since groups are nothing but a collection of individuals, it seems self-evident that human rights exist, and they are truly individual, independent of anybody else. To believe otherwise is to also believe that the color white doesn't exist independently, that it can only be seen when it's sitting next to the color black. I mean, if one believes that, then one must answer exactly how many individuals gathered together does it take before any of them have individual rights? Two? Four? Ten?

I have no idea how you deduced that human rights objectively exist from the questionable premise that societies and group behaviour do not exist.

It takes (minimally) two people for the concept of human rights to have any reality.

It's true that laws help to recognize and enforce those rights, but laws don't define them and they certainly don't grant them (in fact, if government is granting a "right", then it's not really a right at all, it's a privilege). That was the whole point of the US Constitution, that basic rights are beyond the reach of government, that basic rights existed, inherent in each individual, before government ever came along. Some folks seem to think that if a right can be violated, or fail to be recognized by somebody else, then it's not an objective right, which is ludicrous.

Can you give an example of a right that objectively exists?

------------------

It's funny how people take exception to my pointing out that rights only exist through strength of arm.

....

Hence, there are no rights that cannot be enforced through strength of arm. .....

These are two different claims.

All rights can be enforced through strength of arms, but that does not mean that rights only exist through strength of arms.

[Truth To Power]

So, why do you do this to yourself? You know I am just going to demolish and humiliate you.

I don't diagnose online, but help is available, lots of good anti-psychotics out there too. It's probably best you avoid female therapists. Good Luck!

<yawn> You are just sad, now.

I don't expect argument will convince you, epiphany is required,

Speaking of anti-psychotics...

[Stormvessel]

I challenge anyone to explain how rights can exist where strength does not. Just one example. Anyone!

What makes them "rights" if there is nothing backing them up? You can howl on about your precious rights, but unless you (or someone representing you) are stronger than those who would challenge your so-called "rights", it seems to me that "rights" don't amount to a hill of beans.

A stronger male specimen can breach your abode, take your female, and smack your offspring around. Go on about your rights until you are blue in the face. See where that gets you.

There exist no rights, at least not in any real or meaningful sense, that cannot be enforced through strength of arm. A person who cannot grasp this simple concept is an inferior specimen unworthy of reason. I have given a sufficient example to that end - not one person has offered anything substantial in rebuttal. Just abstract musings and social fairy tales.

[Pants-of-dog]

I challenge anyone to explain how rights can exist where strength does not. Just one example. Anyone!

Historically, the right of Canadians to exist as a sovereign and independent nation came from the BNA, a contract signed between Britain and Canada which gave Canada independence. No strength of arms was required to secure this right.

What makes them "rights" if there is nothing backing them up? You can howl on about your precious rights, but unless you (or someone representing you) are stronger than those who would challenge your so-called "rights", it seems to me that "rights" don't amount to a hill of beans.

A stronger male specimen can breach your abode, take your female, and smack your offspring around. Go on about your rights until you are blue in the face. See where that gets you.

They are rights simply because we all got together and mutually decided that. While it often takes more than that to have your rights respected, you can have rights just by agreeing to them.

There exist no rights, at least not in any real or meaningful sense, that cannot be enforced through strength of arm. A person who cannot grasp this simple concept is an inferior specimen unworthy of reason. I have given a sufficient example to that end - not one person has offered anything substantial in rebuttal. Just abstract musings and social fairy tales.

Like I said, all rights can be enforced through strength of arms, but that does not mean that rights only exist through strength of arms.

[Potemkin]

I challenge anyone to explain how rights can exist where strength does not. Just one example. Anyone!

What makes them "rights" if there is nothing backing them up? You can howl on about your precious rights, but unless you (or someone representing you) are stronger than those who would challenge your so-called "rights", it seems to me that "rights" don't amount to a hill of beans.

A stronger male specimen can breach your abode, take your female, and smack your offspring around. Go on about your rights until you are blue in the face. See where that gets you.

There exist no rights, at least not in any real or meaningful sense, that cannot be enforced through strength of arm. A person who cannot grasp this simple concept is an inferior specimen unworthy of reason. I have given a sufficient example to that end - not one person has offered anything substantial in rebuttal. Just abstract musings and social fairy tales.

An individual's 'rights' exist only in the context of a particular community - and such rights tend only to be recognised and respected by other members of that community. Historically speaking, anyone outside that community tended to be regarded as fair game to be robbed, assaulted or even killed with impunity. You only have to crack open a history book to see countless examples of this. Most of the time, within a given community (whether a tribe, a nation-state, an empire, or whatever) no force is required to enforce those rights, though the threat of force is extremely useful to control the behaviour of certain anti-social individuals. Most people respect the rights of other members of their community not out of fear of punishment, but because they want to continue to be regarded as respected members of that community, without which their own rights as members of that community might not be respected.

All of this implies, of course, that I do not believe there are any such things as 'objective' rights or 'natural' rights. In that sense, rights are an abstraction, a 'fiction' if you like, in exactly the same way and to exactly the same extent that any human community is an abstraction, a 'fiction'. But, as Zizek has pointed out, even non-existent things can function, sometimes highly effectively. I regard the concept of 'human rights' as one of those functionally useful fictions.

[taltom]

I challenge anyone to explain how rights can exist where strength does not. Just one example. Anyone!

What makes them "rights" if there is nothing backing them up? You can howl on about your precious rights, but unless you (or someone representing you) are stronger than those who would challenge your so-called "rights", it seems to me that "rights" don't amount to a hill of beans.

A stronger male specimen can breach your abode, take your female, and smack your offspring around. Go on about your rights until you are blue in the face. See where that gets you.

There exist no rights, at least not in any real or meaningful sense, that cannot be enforced through strength of arm. A person who cannot grasp this simple concept is an inferior specimen unworthy of reason. I have given a sufficient example to that end - not one person has offered anything substantial in rebuttal. Just abstract musings and social fairy tales.

Agree in part. Many rights are granted and observed without the need for "strength of arms". Nobody has seriously contested my right to drive on the right side of the road, nor my right to retile my basement as I please. But these are not contentious rights. Other rights are more controversial and may require anything from lawsuits to revolution to achieve. Blacks' right to the ballot has involved enormous effort and only the overwhelming power of the federal government can overcome states' machinations to keep them away. My right to speak my mind would likely come a cropper with my fellow citizens if I were begin advocating radicalism. The idea of "rights" is a complex and dynamic one. What was once an unquestioned right can devolve into severe social disapproval, while some that did not exist previously may emerge as ordinary. It's possible today to claim membership in anarchist groups without being arrested and beaten, but it was unwise in the extreme a couple of generations ago. Even further back whites could arbitrarily and summarily shoot Native Americans without any serious objection by other whites, but trying it today will get you life in prison if you're lucky.

For the nuanced sociological view, this book is a fairly good introduction: http://www.amazon.com/Sociology-Human-Rights-Mark-Frezzo/dp/0745660118/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1443534864&sr=8-1&keywords=sociology+of+human+rights