Human Rights: do they exist ?

[RavenHawk]

I’m updating what I said in the other thread to hopefully make it clearer. In the meantime, let me catch up by adding some replies.

You know, it is strange but when I read the parables in the bible, god seems to do an awful lot of killing or ordering killings. Just an observation

I think you are missing some concepts here. I don’t know if you believe in GOD or not (it really doesn’t matter), at least try to understand his nature. That’s only fair. When GOD “kills”, is he not rewarding those with what they rightfully deserve? As the creator, he’s allowed to do that. Like a potter finding a flaw in a pot, he destroys it. One doesn’t consider the potter as being destructive, do we? But, so that GOD doesn’t end up destroying all the pots, is the reason Jesus came and brought salvation into the mix.

Just out of curiosity, how does being human automatically translate into having rights?

From that standpoint then all humans, regardless of where they live, should have the same rights yet it has been repeatedly demonstrated that this is not the case.

But they do. It is government that robs them of their Rights. But also, it is up to the individual to exercise them. No one else can do that for you. It’s basically the Parable of the Talents.

Again..I am not saying that we shouldn't have rights but when you are born, your chances of surviving depends on the laws that are in place.

Surviving isn’t dependent on the Rights we have. There are no guarantees to life but while we still live, we have every Right to exercise them. Having Rights doesn’t protect us from bad things happening to us. So sure, the state could take your life, but the state needs to be responsive to the governed if the people have any expectation to be free.

Otherwise there is nothing there to say that you deserve to live because of a vague concept.

All concepts are vague until the individual makes them personal.

[RavenHawk]

When rights are not recognised in law, is there any difference whether they exist or not? And if there is no difference, then 'rights' do not have any objective existence outside the law which defines them.

They still exist. When the government has become so oppressive, it is the Right of the people to do away with such government. Government spends a lot of time trying to brainwash the people that they do not have Rights outside of the government. That only becomes true when the people become Ignorant and Apathetic of exercising their Rights.

[Rlyeh]

I think you are missing some concepts here. I don't know if you believe in GOD or not (it really doesn't matter), at least try to understand his nature. That's only fair. When GOD "kills", is he not rewarding those with what they rightfully deserve? As the creator, he's allowed to do that. Like a potter finding a flaw in a pot, he destroys it. One doesn't consider the potter as being destructive, do we? But, so that GOD doesn't end up destroying all the pots, is the reason Jesus came and brought salvation into the mix.

Reduce a sentient entity to a pot and it doesn't sound so bad. Still God should've worked better on his pot making skills.

[RavenHawk]

Reduce a sentient entity to a pot and it doesn't sound so bad.

Using a pot as an example doesn’t reduce the value of a sentient entity.

Still God should've worked better on his pot making skills.

If you see a sentient entity the same as a pot, then I agree. But if you see a sentient entity such as Man with the added ingredient of Free Will, then you couldn’t be more wrong. Free Will gives us the ability to reject GOD. That is the ultimate Yin/Yang. If GOD wanted robots like the Angels, he would have created us as Angels. Free Will makes us individuals and that gives us Natural Rights. And that is what GOD intended in the first place.

[redhen]

We all have them, no matter gender, no matter social status, no matter wealth. HUMAN rights is a better term.

We have them by virtue of having been born human.

"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?

As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is always unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it is always vanquished. Of all the so-called 'natural human rights' that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost."

http://homepage.eirc...i/Heinlein.html

[aka CAT]

You know, it is strange but when I read the parables in the bible, god seems to do an awful lot of killing or ordering killings. Just an observation

To what "parables" do you refer?

The Old Testament only interests me in ways consistent with the teachings of Christ.

Be death God's "welcome home,"

my last word will be "Alleluia!"

[aka CAT]

If GOD wanted robots like the Angels, [...]

Angels were given a choice. Those who serve God

do so for the same reasons I pray to do likewise,

for love of God.

[Bendy Demon]

But, so that GOD doesn't end up destroying all the pots, is the reason Jesus came and brought salvation into the mix.

So you're saying your god made mistakes then?

Surviving isn't dependent on the Rights we have....So sure, the state could take your life, but the state needs to be responsive to the governed if the people have any expectation to be free.

Actually survival IS dependant on the rights we have since it is since the government that is the only one that recognizes whether you have rights or not. Otherwise you could be killed simply because your eyes are the wrong color (extreme but it could happen)

All concepts are vague until the individual makes them personal.

Even if you imagine you have rights, who is going to recognize them?

[Rlyeh]

If you see a sentient entity the same as a pot, then I agree. But if you see a sentient entity such as Man with the added ingredient of Free Will, then you couldn't be more wrong. Free Will gives us the ability to reject GOD. That is the ultimate Yin/Yang. If GOD wanted robots like the Angels, he would have created us as Angels. Free Will makes us individuals and that gives us Natural Rights. And that is what GOD intended in the first place.

Freewill is flawed now?

So God gave humans freewill so they can choose to be robots, and if they don't he kills them.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Rlyeh

[RoofGardener]

Sooo... human rights are inalienable and eternal ?

OK... lets try this.

Here I stand, at the Demilitarized Zone, staring across into North Korea.

The paperwork has finally arrived, complete with a Visitors Visa.

Nervously, I walk out into the DMZ, and towards the NK checkpoint.

After an eternity of feeling guns aimed at me, I arrive, and present my credentials to the young North Korean Interior Ministry Captain.

"Welcome to North Korea, capitalist running-dog pig", the Captain shouts, as he kindly pistol-whips me across the face.

But what is this strange feeling that is sweeping over me ? A strange sense of loss... ?

I check for bleeding and other obvious injuries, but find nothing. then, whilst double-checking earwax levels, it hits me.

MY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LEAKING AWAY.

As the NK checkpoint gate slams shut, and the Police Captain takes me by one arm, I gradually feel my Right to Liberty and Due Process evaporate.

But WHY ? Is there some critical enzyme or trace element - vital for the formation of Human Right - missing from the Atmosphere ? Some vitamin absent from the water, or bacteria from the soil ? But... we have only traveled 100m. How could the physical world have changed that much in such a short distance ?

It hasn't, of course, has it ?

All that has changed is... The Law.

Change the Law, change the Human Rights.

Remove the Law, remove the Human Rights

[aka CAT]

[...] Change the Law, change the Human Rights.

Remove the Law, remove the Human Rights

What is in question then is not so much human rights but Justice,

capitalized to indicate Divine Justice, wherefore I’ll trust no less in God.

Peace be with you.

Edited May 20, 2014 by aka CAT

[spartan max2]

I would argue that all ideas exist. You can never get rid of an idea only the people who follow it. So I would say that the idea of human rights are universal and existing without government ( just probably violated 24/7 due to no protection).

Thats my simplified way of looking at it

[spartan max2]

Sooo... human rights are inalienable and eternal ?

OK... lets try this.

Here I stand, at the Demilitarized Zone, staring across into North Korea.

The paperwork has finally arrived, complete with a Visitors Visa.

Nervously, I walk out into the DMZ, and towards the NK checkpoint.

After an eternity of feeling guns aimed at me, I arrive, and present my credentials to the young North Korean Interior Ministry Captain.

"Welcome to North Korea, capitalist running-dog pig", the Captain shouts, as he kindly pistol-whips me across the face.

But what is this strange feeling that is sweeping over me ? A strange sense of loss... ?

I check for bleeding and other obvious injuries, but find nothing. then, whilst double-checking earwax levels, it hits me.

MY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LEAKING AWAY.

As the NK checkpoint gate slams shut, and the Police Captain takes me by one arm, I gradually feel my Right to Liberty and Due Process evaporate.

But WHY ? Is there some critical enzyme or trace element - vital for the formation of Human Right - missing from the Atmosphere ? Some vitamin absent from the water, or bacteria from the soil ? But... we have only traveled 100m. How could the physical world have changed that much in such a short distance ?

It hasn't, of course, has it ?

All that has changed is... The Law.

Change the Law, change the Human Rights.

Remove the Law, remove the Human Rights

You still have human rights in this situation, they are just now being violated. There is no psychical thing for human rights that like there is not really a psychical thing for alot of human things that we hold dear.

And the fact that your aware that your rights are being violated, wouldn't that in a sense make them exist?

Edited May 20, 2014 by spartan max2

[RoofGardener]

You still have human rights in this situation, they are just now being violated. There is no psychical thing for human rights that like there is not really a psychical thing for alot of human things that we hold dear.

And the fact that your aware that your rights are being violated, wouldn't that in a sense make them exist?

Hmmm..... dunno.

Certainly in the eyes of the violaters, my human rights don't exist.

[Bendy Demon]

Hmmm..... dunno.

Certainly in the eyes of the violaters, my human rights don't exist.

Which proves that "rights" only exist when someone else recognizes and says they do.

Human rights are not universal so what may pass for rights in one place is non-existent in another depending on the governing body.

[RavenHawk]

Busy time at work or I would have replied earlier. Some of my points have already been pointed out.

Sooo... human rights are inalienable and eternal ?

.

.

.

Remove the Law, remove the Human Rights

Yes, they are unalienable and eternal. The term is “un” and not “in” alienable. There’s a long winded essay on the difference but it isn’t important here. I get the two mixed up frequently. As I mentioned before, the ultimate responsibility for protecting your Rights is *YOU*. *YOU* understand (or hopefully you do) the possibilities when you cross the border. You should understand what governments or individuals are capable of. If you don’t want your Rights violated, then don’t cross the border or bring a lot of heavily armed friends. The other side has no moral obligation to observe your Rights. If they do Respect them then all the better. But just because you have Natural Rights doesn’t mean that anyone else is obligated to Respect them. That is their Right.

You can either remove or apply the Law to restrict a person’s Rights OR government can protect them. If government is being oppressive, it is up to the individual to fight back. It is their Right to overthrow the government in such a scenario.

[Bendy Demon]

Well..this sounds all nice and dandy but again, even if you knew all of your "rights", "natural" or otherwise, they still do not exist if the governing bodies in the state, city or borough you live in doesn't recognize or acknowledge them.

Also, kind of hard to "fight back" when faced with imprisonment, torture and/or death for either you and/or your family or if some armed, government sanctioned thugs shoves a gun in your face while tazering your kids and killing your pets.

[RavenHawk]

In order to start anew in a new thread, I tried to merge my previous posts, including posts that I was working on into one work. I’m not sure I am totally happy with this draft but I offer it as a starting point.

All humans have unalienable, GOD given (endowed) natural rights. The individual already has them. We see this in the Bible, and the writings of Pope Leo XIII, John Locke, Adam Smith, etc. (sectarian and secular sources). The individual is ultimately responsible in defending them. The state can only do one of two things. It can either protect those Rights or it can regulate them. Regulate can either mean give or take. When the state protects them, the people are free. When the state regulates them, the people are enslaved. In the act of granting Rights by the government creates dependency which leads to enslavement. And hence, for those that accept that their Rights only come from the government have given them up and become willing slaves of the state. A nation like ours so divided cannot stand or long endure. Half free and half slave. This nation needs to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Lincoln said, “The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.” Today’s nation finds itself in a new crisis. The dogma of the quiet past is Socialism. And the difficulty is if we succumb to the lie of Socialism. Socialism is anti-Natural Law.

As Gerald Ford said (and then repeated by Reagan), “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have.” And that is what government does. That is a violation of what Natural Rights are, of what Humanity is. The only thing that a proper society (a more perfect union) can do is protect Rights. That is what a collective truly is, not redistribution. All partake equally in protecting our Rights which does not include taking something from some and giving to others. That is not a Right.

That’s what made the Constitution so far above all other Oligarchies (Socialism). Socialism can only exist if it can regulate people’s rights. With that said, anarchism is not the goal of acknowledging Natural Rights. “Without law, there can be no freedom” implies the need for government. But “The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government”. This implies that it is government that is restricted, not the people. Government holds the most miniscule of power over the people. This nation is flirting with losing that uniqueness, that beacon of light of the world. Franklin lamented on if we could keep our current form of government because Socialism has that tendency to divide and conquer and overwhelm anything it gets its tentacles into. It is a sickness, the curse of Ignorance and Apathy gives it power.

The Bible is a source of moral code (not the only one). I don’t want to fixate on the fact that it is the Bible, that’s not the point. The Bible only represents the best preserved codex from a time before Abraham, when there was just one Religion. This codex exists in all religions today because all religions derive from that original Religion. The Burning Bush was just Moses’ epiphany. We may never know Hammurabi’s “Burning Bush” moment but do you really think that his codex was completely independent of his religion and history? There are roughly 260 stories of creation that survives today and they all tell of the same basic story. That indicates a common point of origin. The Ten Commandments weren’t really to set law as they were basically to create a cultural identity for the Jews. Moral laws already existed in Egypt before the Jews lived in Goshen, so the Jews weren’t living in a lawless land.

The Bible establishes that life is a precious gift not to be squandered and that is perhaps the basis of all Natural Rights. Knowing what they are should be as simple as breathing. The Mitzvah (Jewish Law) that are found in the Bible are not Rights but Morals (Responsibilities). What we think of as “Rights” are actually a two sided coin. One side is Rights and the other is Responsibilities. A representative subset of the Mitzvah is call the Ten Commandments and that can be boiled down to having respect of self, of others, and of GOD. We see this reflected in the New Commandment that Jesus gave: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” And as such becomes the ultimate Right *AND* Responsibility.

We see from the Declaration of Independence “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This is directly from John Locke’s “Life, Liberty, and Property”. This is reflected (continuation of thought) in the Preamble of the US Constitution, “Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The Bill of Rights continues the list but is not exhaustive. Our Founding Fathers were heavily invested in the ideals of John Locke and others. The next statement in the Declaration of Independence immediately following the establishment of Unalienable Rights is this “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This implies that the power resides in the people and not the government (society). Government has no authority over the individual. Government represents the wishes and nature of the people; it does not dictate how the individual exercises his Rights. Hence, the next part states: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

[RavenHawk]

The US Constitution says that our rights are endowed by our Creator. So unless Ravenhawk thinks that the government created him, his belief that our rights come from the govt are nonsense.

This is a reply from the parent thread that I found interesting and thought I’d include it here.

It seems strange that Yam would “like” post #107 in which I clearly state that our Rights are endowed by our Creator and I nowhere claim that the government created GOD. He then “unlikes” the post and replies with this. What a phony!

[RavenHawk]

Well..this sounds all nice and dandy but again, even if you knew all of your "rights", "natural" or otherwise, they still do not exist if the governing bodies in the state, city or borough you live in doesn't recognize or acknowledge them.

It’s a question of what trumps what? Which concept is artificial and which one is not. Our Rights do not need a government to exist. The only thing needed from the government is if it will protect them or regulate them. If Rights did not exist, then there would no reason to regulate them. Government is quite aware of how real our Rights are because the power of the government derives its power from the governed.

Also, kind of hard to "fight back" when faced with imprisonment, torture and/or death for either you and/or your family or if some armed, government sanctioned thugs shoves a gun in your face while tazering your kids and killing your pets.

Yes it is. But that doesn’t mean that your Rights do not exist. If they did not exist then the government wouldn’t feel the need to control them. The government should naturally fear your Rights.

[aka CAT]

It's a question of what trumps what? Which concept is artificial and which one is not. Our Rights do not need a government to exist. The only thing needed from the government is if it will protect them or regulate them. If Rights did not exist, then there would no reason to regulate them. Government is quite aware of how real our Rights are because the power of the government derives its power from the governed.

Yes it is. But that doesn't mean that your Rights do not exist. If they did not exist then the government wouldn't feel the need to control them. The government should naturally fear your Rights.

It's a question of what trumps what? Which concept is artificial and which one is not. Our Rights do not need a government to exist. The only thing needed from the government is if it will protect them or regulate them. If Rights did not exist, then there would no reason to regulate them. Government is quite aware of how real our Rights are because the power of the government derives its power from the governed.

Yes it is. But that doesn't mean that your Rights do not exist. If they did not exist then the government wouldn't feel the need to control them. The government should naturally fear your Rights.

From my homework assignment (Pauline Epistles) by Bluefinger,

Ephesians 6:11-12

11

Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil.^g

12

For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.^h

[RoofGardener]

It's a question of what trumps what? Which concept is artificial and which one is not. Our Rights do not need a government to exist. The only thing needed from the government is if it will protect them or regulate them. If Rights did not exist, then there would no reason to regulate them. Government is quite aware of how real our Rights are because the power of the government derives its power from the governed.

Yes it is. But that doesn't mean that your Rights do not exist. If they did not exist then the government wouldn't feel the need to control them. The government should naturally fear your Rights.

Thanks for the above, and your preceeding post RavenHawk; it was very much food for thought.

I would suggest, however, that what you have written is a statement of belief, rather than a logical proof or demonstration.

If I can cherry-pick a sentence to illustrate my thinking...

If Rights did not exist, then there would be no reason to regulate them

From my perspective, this is a logical fallacy; it is putting "effect" before "cause".

When you use the term 'regulate', it does indeed suggest that the government is merely influencing something that already exists. My point is that the government does not 'regulate' Human Rights...that is the wrong word. Instead, it creates them .

It takes fragments of moral philosophy - whether from Scripture or Socrates (so to speak) - and codifies them into a national Law.

I'll throw in a metaphor for you all to dissect

Peoples across the planet have been dreaming of human flight for as long as records begin. It has been a common dream, embodied into folk lore and mythology across a huge range of cultures.

But here's the thing; it didn't actually exist until we invented the aeroplane. (well... ummm... or the balloon ... or the glider.. or whatever).

Human Rights where/are the dream.

The Aeroplane is the Law.

Actually.... I could be arguing against myself there. The above suggests that the law merely enabled human rights, rather than creating them.

Ummmm...........I guess what the metaphor says is that prior to the aeroplane, human rights did not exist.

No... wait... oh you know what I mean !

[Leonardo]

But just because you have Natural Rights doesn't mean that anyone else is obligated to Respect them. That is their Right.

What, then, is the difference between having "Rights" and not having "Rights"?

There is only one action which might be considered a "natural right", every living organism has the "right" to fight for its survival.

That is the only "natural right" that exists.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Leonardo

[Bendy Demon]

It's a question of what trumps what? Which concept is artificial and which one is not. Our Rights do not need a government to exist. The only thing needed from the government is if it will protect them or regulate them. If Rights did not exist, then there would no reason to regulate them. Government is quite aware of how real our Rights are because the power of the government derives its power from the governed.

I don't know. It seems like you just confirmed that in order for a right to be regulated that the government would have to know just how to go about that and the only way it can do so is if it scripted the rights to begin with.

As I observe, you don't even need "rights: in order to be governed and controlled anyways because that is the driving force is the ability of a few to manipulate millions.

[lightly]

What, then, is the difference between having "Rights" and not having "Rights"?

There is only one action which might be considered a "natural right", every living organism has the "right" to fight for its survival.

That is the only "natural right" that exists.

Or to sacrifice it's own survival for the good of the colony? I'm thinking of ants that drown while making a bridge for others to survive. Which i suppose could be considered ' fighting the "good" fight' ?

Sometimes animals will fight to the death for the survival of their young. I guess that could be considered fighting for survival.. just not "its" own.