Only One is Needed

[Religious Dick]

So, in your opinion, rights are merely abstract concepts? I am curious as to how that does not leave rights as merely what society says they are (which, in my opinion, would mean they are privileges and not rights).

Let's put it this way - if you lived alone on a desert island, would the concept of "rights" have any meaning? You may well be free, but your rights to life and property won't protect you from tigers and tsunamis.

"Rights" are a meaningless concept absent agents bound to acknowledge them. In other words, rights are a contract between agents competent to acknowledge them.

The idea that all are equal before the law (as opposed to kings, nobility or clergy having special privileges is not self-ev8ident, either, but it is a good start for a fair society.

I'm not entirely sure I buy the idea that an assumption of equality is necessarily fair, nor that it's a prerequisite for a successful society. It's simply one of our axiomatic assumptions that generally goes unchallenged. For example, take the situation most of us spend the majority of our lives in: work. I'm certainly not the equal to the management or the CEO in terms of privilege or compensation, or the discretion to make decisions. My status is more easily measured from the bottom of the organization than the top. There are rules I have to follow that managers and executives are exempt from. Do I resent that? Of course not. Somebody has to be the sysadmin. I'm good at it and I enjoy it, and while I'm not getting rich, compared to most of my fellow citizens I'm making a very good living. In other words, my contentment with my situation is not contingent on being considered an equal.

And we already do have different laws for different classes of citizens. Take affirmative action. It's basically a tacit acknowledgment to minorities that while society won't treat them equally, it will give them compensation. Apparently, they consider that arrangement acceptable, because no politician dares to challenge it.

Also, you'll live under different laws depending on the jurisdiction you live in. In Illinois, possessing fireworks is illegal. 5 miles down the road in Indiana, they're legal.

Equality before the law is a nice fairy-tale, but who could point to a society where it has ever actually been the case? Seems to me the obsession with "equality" has caused more troubles than it's solved.

[Universe Prince]

It is a moral argument, but by no means are the "truths self-evident." Think of it this way. If a propisition is "self-evident" then any reasonable individual should understand it and be unable to offer a legitimate reason to disagree. I think you'll find a great deal of reasonable people who will offer logical reasons why this argument is not self-evident.

In general I agree. But different people believe different things to be self-evident. By which I mean, what one finds to be self-evident can depend on one's perspective and what one considers evidence.

[Universe Prince]

In Britain they tend to illegally camp on private land. [...]

On the other hand the Roma do sometimes leave trash and sewage on the private land. They do commit petty theft and run con games (there are parts of Majorca where having your wallet lifted is part of the "tourist" experience). As a general rule in many parts of Europe, if you're in a large crowd be very cautious of little girls selling flowers or other such things.

They also buck traditional society. Their children are often undereducated and sometimes malnourished. They sometimes refuse to go to clinics or seek medical attention even if it is free. They distrust society and society distrusts them.

Ah. In that case, yes, you probably would see a lot of anti-Roma sentiment. They probably would find people willing to let them camp on privately owned land if they respected property rights, but if they don't then they would not find many friends among land owners.

[Universe Prince]

Let's put it this way - if you lived alone on a desert island, would the concept of "rights" have any meaning?

Yes.

You may well be free, but your rights to life and property won't protect you from tigers and tsunamis.

Uh, rights do not do protect me now, even though I live with a society of people around me. And no one said they would.

"Rights" are a meaningless concept absent agents bound to acknowledge them. In other words, rights are a contract between agents competent to acknowledge them.

I disagree. Laws are meaningless without people around to acknowledge them, but rights are not laws. Humans have rights as humans not as parts of a society, imo. Rights do not require a contract or agreement to exist. If they did, they would be privileges and not rights.

[Universe Prince]

It is not self-evident that all men are equal. I seriouwsly doubt if any two men have EVER been equal.

If it were true, then any one of us could replace any player in the NBA, the NFL, or any other sporting league. We could all be Lance Armstrong, or Barry Bonds, or Donald Trump.

Any woman could be Oprah, or Hillary, or Paris Hilton.

If humans were parts of a mathematical equation, you might have a point. Of course all humans are not the same. But they are all humans. No human is less human than another because he has different color skin or because he has less athletic talent or any number of other factors. You and Michael Jordan and Stephen Hawking and Joe Six-pack are all humans and have the same rights. In this are all humans equal. Yes, I know, not all humans are treated as such, but that does not mean the equality of humans is false. It just means humans are imperfect.

I suppose that I am having to explain this means it is not self-evident, but then again, it seems to me that I shouldn't have to explain it.

[Plane]

  In what respects is it right for the state and the law to acknoledge the inequality of persons?


   I hope that the Dred Scott decision was instructive.

[Universe Prince]

In what respects is it right for the state and the law to acknoledge the inequality of persons?

What do you mean by inequality?

[Religious Dick]

Let's put it this way - if you lived alone on a desert island, would the concept of "rights" have any meaning?

Yes.

How so?

You may well be free, but your rights to life and property won't protect you from tigers and tsunamis.

Uh, rights do not do protect me now, even though I live with a society of people around me. And no one said they would.

Then what use are they?

"Rights" are a meaningless concept absent agents bound to acknowledge them. In other words, rights are a contract between agents competent to acknowledge them.

I disagree. Laws are meaningless without people around to acknowledge them, but rights are not laws. Humans have rights as humans not as parts of a society, imo. Rights do not require a contract or agreement to exist. If they did, they would be privileges and not rights.

Then I have to ask - how do you define "rights", where do they come from, and how do you know that you have them?

[Plane]

In what respects is it right for the state and the law to acknowledge the inequality of persons?

What do you mean by inequality?

Peerage.

[Universe Prince]

Let's put it this way - if you lived alone on a desert island, would the concept of "rights" have any meaning?

Yes.

How so?

I would still be a human, would I not? I would still have a right to live, to pursue my own happiness and all that jazz, would I not? Or is it your proposal that if stranded on a desert island, a human being should just lay there and die because he doesn't have any rights?

You may well be free, but your rights to life and property won't protect you from tigers and tsunamis.

Uh, rights do not do protect me now, even though I live with a society of people around me. And no one said they would.

Then what use are they?

Well, you see, they... G'HUH? What use are rights if they don't protect us from physical threats of nature like tigers and tsunamis? I must be misunderstanding the question. At what point do you think rights are supposed to protect us from anything?

Then I have to ask - how do you define "rights", where do they come from, and how do you know that you have them?

I believe in natural rights, that human have rights because they are humans, and that those rights come from human nature. Humans are individuals with individual minds and bodies. Humans are this way because of evolution or a Creator or both or something else, but this is how humans are, and I see no reason to deny it. As individual human beings, we, in essence, own ourselves. We are responsible for our own thoughts and our own actions. We are human beings who own ourselves, and we exist in time. Which means our past, present, and future belongs to us as individuals. The future is the individual's life. The present is the individual's liberty. The past is the individual's property, i.e. his time and effort and the products thereof. All of this also means that no individual has a claim of ownership over any other individual. This is all very basic, of course, but there are whole books written to address the kind of questions you asked. I don't have the time to write a book here, and I doubt you'd want to read it if I did.

[domer]

The utility of this line of inquiry has probably run its course. Instead of flogging the moribund nag, would it be more productive to list (and explain why) certain "rights" are so inherent in the nature of man so as to be "self-evident"?

[Universe Prince]

I doubt it would, Domer, but feel free to try.

[domer]

Too bad. It seems to be the core question upon which all else in your oeuvre rests.

[Universe Prince]

If someday I ever decide to argue that there is one definitive list of self-evident rights, then you might be correct. Until that time, you're not correct. And I suggest you have allowed your preconceived assumptions to interfere with your understanding of the conversation.

[domer]

Perhaps you care to provide any content whatsoever to the empty vessel you call rights, for without content it can be described best in this way. In other words, tell me about the nature of man, not just that some attributes (what are they?!!!) are so fundamental as to be self-evident. I'm not toying with you, Prince, though I could.