[Zamuel]

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

The co-existence of Rights and Strength is not in question. The validity of the concept that rights do not exist without strength is.

A child has Rights, but very little strength. Yet you will find few (Much Stronger) adults willing to impinge on the child's rights. Natural instincts forbid it, humans instinctively defend and provide for children. Their rights are respected without question. Those who will abuse, endanger, and even destroy children are functioning abnormally and are abhorrent to other humans. The child does not organize politically and it's strength remains impotent for around a decade.

You can rationalize all day long about WHY this happens and try to change the context into something that justifies your agenda, but it remains a easily proven example. The test to prove it's truth is: we strip away all extraneous details and recheck the validity of the thesis "a child has intrinsic rights." Remove the Armies, Governments, Police, etc ... Does the child still have rights ? - Yes ... Remove the Churches, Laws, and the Popular Morality of the moment, and Yes, the child still has rights, remove the Parents and Family, Yes, the rights remain and are consistently recognized ... As long as the child remains alive it retains it's rights and ALL normal humans will instinctively respond to them.

Yes, Strength is acquired to protect rights, but the rights come first. In our FREE society, strength is consensually limited and forbidden to interfere in the exercise of those rights ... When strength is misapplied to impose limits on rights, human nature invariably responds in a variety of negative manifestations.

When America declared independence, the answer to this question was engraved in history. The Americans said :

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

>>>That to secure these rights,<<< Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

Rights come first, imbued at creation, Government is second, Strength is required when government fails.

No one (that I know of) disputes the fact that rights can be denied, and manipulated. But denial and manipulative repression alter only the expression of those rights, not their existence. Remove the impediments and the rights reassert themselves, unaltered. It may be a significant brain strain for some to comprehend the higher, civilized, values of the modern world. But I think even at the most barbaric levels the example of the child and natural respect for it's rights is apparent. Over time, strength dissipates and government degenerates, rights do not, they are a constant.

An individual's 'rights' exist only in the context of a particular community - and such rights tend only to be recognized and respected by other members of that community.

I think the example of the child establishes that rights are universal and extend beyond any and all community boundaries.


Zam

[Stormvessel]

I never said that rights do not exist. I merely argue that without the strength to defend these rights, they are not truly rights.

Yes, this goes for children's rights as well. There are in fact people, irrespective of normality, who would in fact violate their rights. And there are many, even among those not related to the particular child, who would fight to the bloody death in it's defense. If this nature be rooted in evolutionary biology, then this is a strength in and of itself, as it has the power to control the actions of many.

[mikema63]

Rights are an invisible gas, i suspect them to be Gods farts.

[Zamuel]

I never said that rights do not exist. I merely argue that without the strength to defend these rights, they are not truly rights.

Rights exist but they aren't really rights ? ... come on ... Strength is JUSTIFIED by rights ... it doesn't create them. And just to clarify ... Mankinds understanding is, and probably always will be, imperfect. The aggressive employment of strength to extend "Rights" serves as an example.

Yes, this goes for children's rights as well. There are in fact people, irrespective of normality, who would in fact violate their rights.

Yes there are, Society and History consistently abhors them. Their behavior is abnormal and inconsistent.

[Rich]

I think the example of the child establishes that rights are universal and extend beyond any and all community boundaries.

What apart from mobile hunter gather societies where new born babies will often be bludgeoned to death if they are born to close to the mother's previous child. If a Roman man believed his wife's child was by another man he was perfectly withon his rights to kill the child, hell he could his own children and his slaves. The examples go on and on.

[Zamuel]

I think the example of the child establishes that rights are universal and extend beyond any and all community boundaries.

What apart from mobile hunter gather societies where new born babies will often be bludgeoned to death.

I really don't need to explain the difference between an Infant and a Child do I? Your observation is in fact based on intrinsic rights. A case of the rights of many trumping the rights of an infant. Social development did in fact lead to ritual and ceremonial acceptance of children ... Confirming their rights before witnesses. It often coincided with naming the child, granting them a personal identity.

Zam

[Stormvessel]

Rights exist but they aren't really rights ? ... come on ... Strength is JUSTIFIED by rights ... it doesn't create them. And just to clarify ... Mankinds understanding is, and probably always will be, imperfect. The aggressive employment of strength to extend "Rights" serves as an example.

You are misunderstanding me. What I mean is that strength creates rights. Rights do not exist where strength does not exist.

If there is no strength or law, from whence come your precious rights? If I kill a child on Pluto, whose rights were violated? And what makes them rights? It seems a clear cut case of strength over weakness to me. I mean, you can call them "rights" until you are blue in the face. You can protest and jump up and down, maintaining that a grave injustice has been done. But what good does it do? You can allude to some abstract, spiritual law until your little heart's content. But it doesn't cut the mustard.

How can rights exist absent the ability to enforce said rights? They cannot...otherwise they aren't "rights"! This isn't hard, people.

[Zamuel]

You are misunderstanding me. What I mean is that strength creates rights. Rights do not exist where strength does not exist.

No, the child has essentially no strength, and needs none.

If there is no strength or law, from whence come your precious rights?

Like the sun, the moon, and the stars, like life itself, they are a natural manifestation. They are intrinsic, universal, divine, use any context that suits you.

You can allude to some abstract, spiritual law until your little heart's content. But it doesn't cut the mustard.

It doesn't have to. You don't impose limitations on the universe, you got it backwards. Tell you what, lets pump a balloon up with acetylene and you carry it around for an hour and apply your strength to preventing it from doing what it's going to do. (hint - pay you insurance up).

Zam

[Potemkin]

You are misunderstanding me. What I mean is that strength creates rights. Rights do not exist where strength does not exist.

Rights would exist in the absence of strength, but only as abstract notions in people's heads. To become real, rights must be enforceable, and this requires strength - not the strength of the individual, but the strength of society as a whole. The rights of the individual are bestowed by society as a whole, and are enforced by society as a whole. A child therefore has rights despite having no strength, but it would have no rights in the absence of society's decision to bestow and enforce those 'rights'.

[KlassWar]

And there are many, even among those not related to the particular child, who would fight to the bloody death in it's defense.

It'd be more acurate to say that there are many that would go through some inconvenience for the sake of a a random child. Fighting to the bloody death is more of a family, family friends and community kind of thing.

[Zamuel]

Rights would exist in the absence of strength, but only as abstract notions in people's heads. To become real, rights must be enforceable, and this requires strength - not the strength of the individual, but the strength of society as a whole. The rights of the individual are bestowed by society as a whole, and are enforced by society as a whole. A child therefore has rights despite having no strength, but it would have no rights in the absence of society's decision to bestow and enforce those 'rights'.

I think you've done a good job of expressing the argument for strength. And I would not dispute your logic. You are correct about the relationship of strength and "abstract notions." What I do dispute is that Rights are Abstract Notions. As I already pointed out, you can eliminate all elements of social authority, eliminate parental authority. Leave the child standing completely without any strength to support it. And any "normal" Human will recognize and respond to it's natural, inalienable, rights. That Human will devote his/her strength to those rights precisely because the child NEEDS that strength ... Strength is the secondary factor, the rights are the primary. Strength devotes itself to making rights "REAL" because they -DO- exist and are naturally sensed and intuited by all "Normal" Humans. Even those far below the threshold of complicated abstract thought.

Zam

[Rich]

And any "normal" Human will recognize and respond to it's natural, inalienable, rights.

That's right who apart from the rare loner psychopath would ever support slavery? Who would deny a woman's right to an abortion, who would deny a person's right to engage in homosexual relations if they so wished?

[Potemkin]

I think you've done a good job of expressing the argument for strength. And I would not dispute your logic. You are correct about the relationship of strength and "abstract notions." What I do dispute is that Rights are Abstract Notions. As I already pointed out, you can eliminate all elements of social authority, eliminate parental authority. Leave the child standing completely without any strength to support it. And any "normal" Human will recognize and respond to it's natural, inalienable, rights. That Human will devote his/her strength to those rights precisely because the child NEEDS that strength ... Strength is the secondary factor, the rights are the primary. Strength devotes itself to making rights "REAL" because they -DO- exist and are naturally sensed and intuited by all "Normal" Humans. Even those far below the threshold of complicated abstract thought.

You seem to be essentially Mencian in your faith in the existence of human rights as an 'intuitive' truth about the world: "When I say that all men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus:- even now-a-days, if men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they will without exception experience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favour of the child's parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbours and friends, nor from a dislike to the reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing." (Mencius 6:3). I am not an intuitionist; rather, I adopt a sociological approach to the concept of human rights. Such rights seem to me to be an emergent property of human society, and are actually an adaptive property. Without such concepts of morality or of 'inalienable' human rights, human society would almost certainly be unable to function. The absence of such concepts seems to be maladaptive. However, such concepts can only exist in reality if they are backed up by force - the collective force which society as a whole can bring to bear upon an individual who violates those concepts. This means, of course, governments, law courts, policemen and prisons, etc. It's this sort of dialectical relationship between the individual and the society in which they are embedded which Rousseau referred to as the "social contract". The individual has no rights and no real existence as a human being without being part of a larger society, and society is an abstraction which has no meaning without the multiple, conflicting subjectivities of the individuals who comprise it. There is no freedom for the individual without constraint, there are no individual human rights without the force which society can bring to bear in defence of those rights, and so on.

[mikema63]

And any "normal" Human will recognize and respond to it's natural, inalienable, rights.

You've implicitly defined normal human's as people who agree with you.

Many don't, and historically many fewer did.

In fact if you look at what people actually do as they walk by a homeless person instead of what they say they believe then you'll clearly see how they actually think. Judge their acts and you'll suddenly realize that most of humanity isn't concerned with things like the welfare and rights of people they don't personally know.

[Zamuel]

Without such concepts of morality or of 'inalienable' human rights, human society would almost certainly be unable to function. The absence of such concepts seems to be maladaptive.

Exactly.

However, such concepts can only exist in reality if they are backed up by force.

Here I differ only in hierarchy. I consider that force backs up the "Concept" of inalienable rights because the individuals behind that force recognize (consciously or subconsciously) the intrinsic reality of those rights. This is exactly the format Jefferson portrayed. I think the logic is just as solid when the priorities are reversed. It's recognition may require an epiphany that overcomes popular assumptions ? Tom and I are waiting for you ...

Zam

[Zamuel]

And any "normal" Human will recognize and respond to it's natural, inalienable, rights.

You've implicitly defined normal human's as people who agree with you.

Well, I do consider myself normal ... Forgive me for once again turning things around, but I think it's more a matter of ME agreeing with THEM.

In fact if you look at what people actually do as they walk by a homeless person instead of what they say they believe then you'll clearly see how they actually think.

Some consider selfishness a virtue ... Personally, I think it's another manifestation of the inalienable rights we each possess. It's quite natural that we 1st experience and come to recognize these rights within ourselves externalizing them leads to the higher orders of social integration (which may at times be amplified by common consensus into excesses like Germany's current immigration fiasco). Some people take longer than others to achieve this, some never do.

Zam

[Potemkin]

Here I differ only in hierarchy. I consider that force backs up the "Concept" of inalienable rights because the individuals behind that force recognize (consciously or subconsciously) the intrinsic reality of those rights.

I disagree. Since the time of Hammurabi, the authorities have created law codes and enforced those law codes with judges, soldiers and executioners because they have wanted to maintain order. Such social order depends, and has always depended, on the general acceptance of a moral or ethical code of which the law is merely the manifestation in terms of state force. This does not mean that these concepts of morality or human rights are "intrinsic" - on the contrary, they tend to change over historical time, which rather suggests that they are not intrinsic at all.

This is exactly the format Jefferson portrayed. I think the logic is just as solid when the priorities are reversed. It's recognition may require an epiphany that overcomes popular assumptions ? Tom and I are waiting for you ...

Jefferson recognised that slavery was an immoral institution which undermined the very basis of the American Revolution itself. But he was unable or unwilling to use the requisite force to abolish it. That was left for Abraham Lincoln to accomplish.... by force....

[mikema63]

Well, I do consider myself normal ... Forgive me for once again turning things around, but I think it's more a matter of ME agreeing with THEM.

You cant assume normalcy, it doesn't mean anything outside the human mind.

Some consider selfishness a virtue ... Personally, I think it's another manifestation of the inalienable rights we each possess. It's quite natural that we 1st experience and come to recognize these rights within ourselves externalizing them leads to the higher orders of social integration (which may at times be amplified by common consensus into excesses like Germany's current immigration fiasco). Some people take longer than others to achieve this, some never do.

This doesn't even make sense, do you really believe most people walking by a homeless person are objectivists? All you've really done is express the golden rule, that we should treat others as we would want to be treated, but this says absolutely nothing about the objectivity of rights. That neither of us wants to be killed says nothing about the morality of either of us being killed.

[Zamuel]

Well, I do consider myself normal ... Forgive me for once again turning things around, but I think it's more a matter of ME agreeing with THEM.

You cant assume normalcy, it doesn't mean anything outside the human mind.

Sure it does ..."Measurable parameters."

Some consider selfishness a virtue ... Personally, I think it's another manifestation of the inalienable rights we each possess. It's quite natural that we 1st experience and come to recognize these rights within ourselves externalizing them leads to the higher orders of social integration (which may at times be amplified by common consensus into excesses like Germany's current immigration fiasco). Some people take longer than others to achieve this, some never do.

This doesn't even make sense, do you really believe most people walking by a homeless person are objectivists?

Yes, at least subconsciously and within the limits of their experience.

All you've really done is express the golden rule, that we should treat others as we would want to be treated

You gotta problem with the golden rule? ... MOM !

but this says absolutely nothing about the objectivity of rights.

Yes it does, the Golden Rule is a simplistic recognition that familiarizes us with our own internal sense of rights. The lack of this vital connection is a major factor in sociopathy.

Zam

[Stormvessel]

Zam,

Are you saying that rights exist intrinsically? And if so, are they self-sustaining? Do they have a beginning? Were we "endowed by a creator" with these rights? By what right do "rights" exist? Answer that and I might have a better idea of what I am up against.

I see no reason for rights to even be respected aside from the need to obey certain ingrained impulses dictated by sociocultural evolution. That would make rights secondary to naturalism and determinism, therefore "rights" would have no more actual substance than the whim of an individual. The only difference is there are more people in agreement - and it's the power of the multitude, society, that gives strength to rights.

I see no more reason to believe in the sanctity of rights than to believe in karma or free-will, or anything of the like. They are clearly explained by sociology, empowered only by the strength of many, and are intrinsically worthless.