Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Current Topics
Texas hostages
by pdx rick - 01/17/22 03:41 AM
Winning
by perotista - 01/17/22 12:14 AM
Gerrymandering
by pdx rick - 01/17/22 12:13 AM
Round Table Winter 2021
by pdx rick - 01/17/22 12:00 AM
Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?
by chunkstyle - 01/16/22 03:45 PM
National Commission to Investigate the January 6
by pondering_it_all - 01/16/22 12:02 PM
Lindsey v. Mitch: Senate cage match
by logtroll - 01/15/22 05:11 AM
Don't look up
by jgw - 01/14/22 10:42 PM
Complexity Science
by Jeffery J. Haas - 01/12/22 06:34 PM
What's for dinner?
by pondering_it_all - 01/02/22 09:37 PM
RoundTable For Fall 2021
by Mellowicious - 01/02/22 04:21 AM
Divorce: American Style
by pdx rick - 12/31/21 01:56 AM
Gimme some of that good ol time religion
by pondering_it_all - 12/23/21 08:19 PM
F.D.A. Will Permanently Allow Abortion Pills by Mail
by Mellowicious - 12/22/21 09:03 PM
Joe Manchin thread
by perotista - 12/22/21 08:33 PM
A Fungus Amungus
by logtroll - 12/22/21 01:00 AM
Texas abortion law guy responds
by Mellowicious - 12/19/21 02:06 AM
Popular Topics(Views)
9,782,512 my own book page
4,857,491 We shall overcome
3,971,686 Campaign 2016
3,615,563 Trump's Trumpet
2,867,237 3 word story game
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 21 of 29 1 2 19 20 21 22 23 28 29
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
OP Offline
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Originally Posted by issodhos
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
I suppose you haven't spent much time on the Constitution, have you - its structure and purpose? Oh, but discussion of that substantive portion of my earlier post would detract from the distraction of focusing on semantics, wouldn't it?
Well, I must admit that I have not spent much time restructuring, re-purposing, and fancifully re-interpreting it into a moldy piece of cheese that can be shaped into any transient form that is useful at any given moment, NW Ponderer.

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
"Rights" are merely interests that have gained sufficient importance to be protected by legal strictures - oh, which means protected by the State.

That is, at best, a description of privileges granted (and easily rescinded) by the State to its subjects, NW Ponderer, not Rights. Though, I do see how handy it can be to present Rights as being subject to the arbitrary interpretation of a ruling class, I remain much more comfortable with what I wrote in another thread quite some time back:
Originally Posted by issodhos
Allow me to first repeat, with emphasis added, what I have previously written, which was, �My view is that rights are inalienable and pre-exist the state and also pre-exist any agreement made among men to recognize them.� Please note that I did not write that they pre-existed man. I also wrote that �rights are integral to the human mind� which is to say they are integral to man. They are essential to the completeness of man and reflect the nature of man, not nature in general, not �natural� man, but the nature of man.
Yours,
Issodhos

What you fail to seem to be able to comprehend, issodhos, is something several of us have repeatedly made available to you -- there is no basis for your claim, either in logic or science. Humans did not develop with a notion of "rights", alienable or not. That is a very recent concept which even today is not universally a part of all human being's reality.


Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,739
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,739
Originally Posted by issodhos
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
In other words, rights are "notional."

In other words, Rights are "inherent". How's that for a stand-off?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

and women of course have enjoyed the same inherent rights as equals with men right? erm when were women allowed vote? own property etc. it has been the same throughout history has it? Piffle i believe is the word, even a cursory glance through history negates the notion of natural rights....

throughout history, rights have had to be fought for and won. they are not inherent, they are not natural, they are developed, fought over, ammended changed, redefined througout history.

it is often in the course of the struggle that rights are defined, refined and codified, quite often after a revolution - political or social.



"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by Phil Hoskins
Originally Posted by issodhos
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
I suppose you haven't spent much time on the Constitution, have you - its structure and purpose? Oh, but discussion of that substantive portion of my earlier post would detract from the distraction of focusing on semantics, wouldn't it?
Well, I must admit that I have not spent much time restructuring, re-purposing, and fancifully re-interpreting it into a moldy piece of cheese that can be shaped into any transient form that is useful at any given moment, NW Ponderer.

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
"Rights" are merely interests that have gained sufficient importance to be protected by legal strictures - oh, which means protected by the State.

That is, at best, a description of privileges granted (and easily rescinded) by the State to its subjects, NW Ponderer, not Rights. Though, I do see how handy it can be to present Rights as being subject to the arbitrary interpretation of a ruling class, I remain much more comfortable with what I wrote in another thread quite some time back:
Originally Posted by issodhos
Allow me to first repeat, with emphasis added, what I have previously written, which was, �My view is that rights are inalienable and pre-exist the state and also pre-exist any agreement made among men to recognize them.� Please note that I did not write that they pre-existed man. I also wrote that �rights are integral to the human mind� which is to say they are integral to man. They are essential to the completeness of man and reflect the nature of man, not nature in general, not �natural� man, but the nature of man.
Yours,
Issodhos

What you fail to seem to be able to comprehend, issodhos, is something several of us have repeatedly made available to you -- there is no basis for your claim, either in logic or science. Humans did not develop with a notion of "rights", alienable or not. That is a very recent concept which even today is not universally a part of all human being's reality.

Please understand, Phil, I do appreciate that several of you deigned to descend from Mt. Olympus, even if only briefly, to bestow upon this mere mortal the perceived wisdom of your paradigm. Your proclamation is again noted.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
OP Offline
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Issodhos, I don't see the need for sarcasm, I had hoped you would see that you state things as though they are the eternal truth. When I or someone else either asks for substantiation or posits an alternative "truth", you find a way to ignore it.

But the thread was and is intended to give us an opportunity to get at these basic elements in a real discussion. All I am saying is that the science of human development does not support your assertion that the state evolved to protect individual rights. I suggest the evidence is the exact opposite and that only within the last couple of centuries has that concept emerged.

To me this is important, because of your claim that rights are "inalienable" as contrasted with my claim that rights are dependent upon a structure of enforcement.

Last edited by Phil Hoskins; 05/22/09 04:25 PM.

Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,652
Likes: 47
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,652
Likes: 47
Yesterday we were discussing "property" and how primitives held everything in "common". I submit that children are perhaps the most primitive form of humans, fuzzy brained, with only the vestiges of genetic memories passed down from the parents. They must be taught everything from how to eat, walk, and talk. I further submit that, while more often than not the first word that baby learns is "Mommy", the second more often than not is Mine Mine Mine! Does baby learn this concept of property rights so easily or is it ingrained, actually genetically passed down rather than learned. This "right" to posses something and not have it taken away is no different from any savage beast which claims the right to control "territory". Said beast, by virtue of whuppin' your ass, also claims the right to mate with the nearest female, claims the right to biggest chunk of food etc. etc.
In conclusion I submit that "rights" preceded even intelligence.

I apologize if this thread is supposed to be a one way street where everyone bashes Issodhos, I just keep seeing other ways to think about the various assertions and condemnations. Feel free to shoot me down, Isso wont be back for hours anyway....

Edit: Welcome back Issodos! I didn't imagine we would be seeing you until this evening.

Last edited by Greger; 05/22/09 04:34 PM.

Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by Schlack
and women of course have enjoyed the same inherent rights as equals with men right?

Females have, and always have had, the same natural rights that men have. For ages, and in some societies continuing today, females were prevented from exercising those natural rights.

If you are interested in the subject, here are a couple of links to CHB threads that previously discussed rights:
Do We Have Individual Rights?

and

Individual Rights vs Group rights
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s. So, how are those EU fishermen doing now that we resolved their dilemma?:-)



"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,652
Likes: 47
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,652
Likes: 47
Quote
To me this is important, because of your claim that rights are "inalienable" as contrasted with my claim that rights are dependent upon a structure of enforcement.
Phil, why can't both of these things be true? As with womens rights it's easy to see that women have the same rights as men but without a structure of enforcement it's all to possible for these "inalienable rights" to be usurped.


Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
OP Offline
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Greger no one is "bashing" issodhos nor anyone else, we are, however, challenging some assertions and that is what this board does so well.

I think, with regard to your "mine mine mine" statement, that you have conflated desire with right. Of course humans are aquisitive and no doubt protective of what they have acquired. That is precisely what I and others have acknowledged as underlying the other human trait, the use of force to protect acquisitions.

But lets get history correct. Early humans had first to develop a sense of "self" before either ownership or rights could be conceived of. That took many millenia to come about. As it developed, most small hunter-gatherer clusters evolved into chiefdoms which is when the first concept of differentiation of role and place occurred.

Some time later these chiefdoms evolved into tribes, where the first forms of specialized behavior and public forms of structure came about. At none of these levels is there any notion of individual rights, as contrasted to a very primitive and developing concept of individual ownership.

The notion of rights probably did develop around property, but at all times was it clear that the right without a system of enfocing those rights made the right illusory.

The whole discussion of whether that right sprang from the state or was inalienable is a false dichotomy. The concept of rights sprang from the ego developed mind of man and those with an interest in stability and order found it expedient to use the state to enforce claims of right.

I have no quarrel with the concept of "inalienable" rights if it is also recognized that absent state enforcement and protection of those rights, they are illusory and therefore an abstraction. I see nothing advancing the practical, down to earth, real world experience of living that is enhanced by that abstraction.


Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by Phil Hoskins
But the thread was and is intended to give us an opportunity to get at these basic elements in a real discussion. All I am saying is that the science of human development does not support your assertion that the state evolved to protect individual rights. I suggest the evidence is the exact opposite and that only within the last couple of centuries has that concept emerged.

I seriously doubt that was the intent of starting this thread, Phil, and I think there are a number of posters now seeking to distance themselves from the discussion of how a libertarian-oriented society would work.

It is incorrect to say that I assert that the state evolved to protect individual rights. I have been clear that I support the concept that the reason for instituting government is to secure and protect individual rights. Is that a recent concept? Yes. Does that have a relevence to the existance of natural rights? No. Government does not "evolve" -- it is "instituted" by those who have the power to do so, and instituted in the form they dictate.
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,739
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,739
Originally Posted by issodhos
Originally Posted by Schlack
and women of course have enjoyed the same inherent rights as equals with men right?

Females have, and always have had, the same natural rights that men have. For ages, and in some societies continuing today, females were prevented from exercising those natural rights.

is there some law of physics or biology that is the foundation of these rights?

all human behaviour has developed throughout the development of our species. thought is but one of them. the notion of "rights" has been different thoughout history. Rights are a human construct. if by Natural rights, you mean a particular construction version of rights, i can agree that yes they exist. if youre meaning is that natural rights are a distinct idea that has always existed and only recently been discovered.. well ... piffle ... unless of course you can provide a fossil record.

(could you please clarify lest this all be a semantic misunderstanding)

funnily enough I should, given a little time (and a little less booze) be able to present a fossil record of the development of rights, uneven and with many evolutionary off shoots (libertarianism being one). we will be able to view rights developing over time.

how, if they developed over time, could we arrive at natural rights? we could arrive at refined rights, developed rights, legacy rights no problemo, i just have a hard time accepting that all the greatest minds of history did not stumble accross the same natural rights as your particular band of libertarianism. or that they didnt all branch off from the stem of natural rights.

I cannot agree that people went about purposefully denying peoplye their natural rights, that were only defined relatively recently, rather than applying their societal norms - for example Nobility, slaves and women. Their rights were inherently different and many at the time would have claimed that order as "natural",

"Natural" seems to be a weasel word designed, i think to try to own debate, who could be against something natural. - a bit like pro-life!

Quote
P.s. So, how are those EU fishermen doing now that we resolved their dilemma?:-)

im contemplating my response, I want to be careful that that strand of this thread doesnt end up being a pantomime: "oh no he didnt, OH YES HE DID". rest assured I will come back to you, hopefully with something exploratory or constructive.




"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)

Page 21 of 29 1 2 19 20 21 22 23 28 29

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 38 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
SuZQ2, KevFilthyANML, Risky, Gladys G. Jackson, Beach Baby
6,297 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums61
Topics17,273
Posts313,875
Members6,297
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.27 Page Time: 0.017s Queries: 36 (0.007s) Memory: 3.0527 MB (Peak: 3.2530 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2022-01-17 07:20:48 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS