Political Crossfire Forums

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

From Capitalism and Democracy.

Since we were ranging further and further from the topic of the thread, I've quoted the relevant pieces of the argument here.

Reason wrote: The police are simply enforcing a right whether they are able to or not doesn't matter, whether they exist or not doesn't matter.
RueTheDay wrote: What is the origin of these rights? Please don't say God or nature or some other nonsense.
Reason wrote: Reason.
RueTheDay wrote: That's not going to cut it. People can use "reason" to come up with all sorts of conflicting notions of what should be.
Korimyr the Rat wrote: Reason may help us to understand something, but it cannot create anything. It most specifically cannot create "rights".
Reason wrote: It's not creating something, it's simply demonstarting the facts of objective reality. We derive rights from combining the two.
Korimyr the Rat wrote: Which objective facts of reality allow you to derive moral principles, like the concept of rights?
Reason wrote: a=a (I think you knew the answer I was going to give, and it's been given since Aristotle.)

How does the Law of Identity create, explain, or in any fashion justify the existence of "rights"?

Prog · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2571

Korimyr the Rat wrote: How does the Law of Identity create, explain, or in any fashion justify the existence of "rights"?

A right is a right. Seems clear to me, albeit useless.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:48 am Post subject:

The right is the extentention of the Cogito into the external world and the actions which can be justifed with this extenion can only be thouse which to not interfear with the actions of others.

Prog · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2571

thefranzkafkafront wrote: The right is the extentention of the Cogito into the external world and the actions which can be justifed with this extenion can only be thouse which to not interfear with the actions of others.

In english please!

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:51 am Post subject:

Prog wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: The right is the extentention of the Cogito into the external world and the actions which can be justifed with this extenion can only be thouse which to not interfear with the actions of others.

In english please!

Ok.

Are your farmiliar with Cartisian Sceptism?

Prog · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2571

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Prog wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: The right is the extentention of the Cogito into the external world and the actions which can be justifed with this extenion can only be thouse which to not interfear with the actions of others.

In english please!

Ok.

Are your farmiliar with Cartisian Sceptism?

No, do tell.

Are you speaking of the meditations?

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

Korimyr the Rat wrote: How does the Law of Identity create, explain, or in any fashion justify the existence of "rights"?

It doesn't.

Here are some more questions - is it possible for rights to exist that are neither "natural" nor "inalienable"? Are rights an exclusive feature of deontological systems or is there a place for rights in certain consequentialist systems like rule utilitarianism?

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

thefranzkafkafront wrote: The right is the extentention of the Cogito into the external world and the actions which can be justifed with this extenion can only be thouse which to not interfear with the actions of others.

Are you saying that the only rights that really exist are negative rights?

Prog · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2571

RueTheDay wrote: Korimyr the Rat wrote: How does the Law of Identity create, explain, or in any fashion justify the existence of "rights"?

It doesn't.

Are rights an exclusive feature of deontological systems or is there a place for rights in certain consequentialist systems like rule utilitarianism?

(at the risk of sounding glib:) The right to exist equally, happily and freely under rule utilitarianism seems like a favorable, consequential rule.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject:

Prog wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Prog wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: The right is the extentention of the Cogito into the external world and the actions which can be justifed with this extenion can only be thouse which to not interfear with the actions of others.

In english please!

Ok.

Are your farmiliar with Cartisian Sceptism?

No, do tell.

Are you speaking of the meditations?

Yes the conclusion of which was that the only true knowable thing in all of existance was your existstance of your own conciousness.

And that this conciousness was in some way connected with an external world of sense data.

Thus is we take that every cogito is able and thus justifed in extending itself into the external world, this therefore must be the basis for all rights.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:52 pm Post subject:

RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: The right is the extentention of the Cogito into the external world and the actions which can be justifed with this extenion can only be thouse which to not interfear with the actions of others.

Are you saying that the only rights that really exist are negative rights?

Negative liberty yes.

No one has the right to advance their own will at the purposeful and direct disadvantage of others. Thus all rights must be non inferatory.

Thomas Hobbes wrote: "a free man is he that... is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do."

Prog · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2571

thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Yes the conclusion of which was that the only true knowable thing in all of existance was your existstance of your own conciousness.

And that this conciousness was in some way connected with an external world of sense data.

Thus is we take that every cogito is able and thus justifed in extending itself into the external world, this therefore must be the basis for all rights.

Therefore, rights are justified by human conciousness thus, they are not natural; rights are a human-contrivance.

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

RueTheDay wrote: is it possible for rights to exist that are neither "natural" nor "inalienable"?

I think so, given that these are the only kind of rights that exist.

A man (or a society) only has those rights which he is capable of claiming for itself and defending with his own force of arms; everything else is simply a moral argument for why his neighbors should support him.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject:

Prog wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Yes the conclusion of which was that the only true knowable thing in all of existance was your existstance of your own conciousness.

And that this conciousness was in some way connected with an external world of sense data.

Thus is we take that every cogito is able and thus justifed in extending itself into the external world, this therefore must be the basis for all rights.

Therefore, rights are justified by human conciousness thus, they are not natural; rights are a human-contrivance.

How is Human conciousness not natural.

If anything our own conciousness is the only thing in existance we can be sure of as natural.

Prog · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2571

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Prog wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Yes the conclusion of which was that the only true knowable thing in all of existance was your existstance of your own conciousness.

And that this conciousness was in some way connected with an external world of sense data.

Thus is we take that every cogito is able and thus justifed in extending itself into the external world, this therefore must be the basis for all rights.

Therefore, rights are justified by human conciousness thus, they are not natural; rights are a human-contrivance.

How is Human conciousness not natural.

If anything our own conciousness is the only thing in existance we can be sure of as natural.

If consciousness is a prerequisite for rights then, in effect, this disqualifies newborn infants (and fetuses) from attaining said rights. They are obviously human, yet lack consciousness. Ergo, being human is not a sufficiant condition for "natural" rights.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject:

Prog wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Prog wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Yes the conclusion of which was that the only true knowable thing in all of existance was your existstance of your own conciousness.

And that this conciousness was in some way connected with an external world of sense data.

Thus is we take that every cogito is able and thus justifed in extending itself into the external world, this therefore must be the basis for all rights.

Therefore, rights are justified by human conciousness thus, they are not natural; rights are a human-contrivance.

How is Human conciousness not natural.

If anything our own conciousness is the only thing in existance we can be sure of as natural.

If consciousness is a prerequisite for rights then, in effect, this disqualifies newborn infants (and fetuses) from attaining said rights. They are obviously human, yet lack consciousness. Ergo, being human is not a sufficiant condition for "natural" rights.

If you can prove that neither is conscious i'd say you would settle the debate.
However you can't.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: The right is the extentention of the Cogito into the external world and the actions which can be justifed with this extenion can only be thouse which to not interfear with the actions of others.

Are you saying that the only rights that really exist are negative rights?

Negative liberty yes.

No one has the right to advance their own will at the purposeful and direct disadvantage of others. Thus all rights must be non inferatory.

Thomas Hobbes wrote: "a free man is he that... is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do."

The problem with the claim that only negative liberty is valid because positive liberty would require taking from one to give to another is that even negative liberty has an enforcement cost associated with it. The line isn't as clear as some people think.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

Korimyr the Rat wrote: RueTheDay wrote: is it possible for rights to exist that are neither "natural" nor "inalienable"?

I think so, given that these are the only kind of rights that exist.

A man (or a society) only has those rights which he is capable of claiming for itself and defending with his own force of arms; everything else is simply a moral argument for why his neighbors should support him.

Correct. Rights are a social construct, they are not "natural" in the sense of deriving from God or nature or whatever else the natural rights proponents put forth as their source.

Since someone already mentioned negative rights, if we take those as the most basic form, then every negative right has an associated positive duty to respect that right attached to everyone else in society. This makes sense because rights themselves are a human invention.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:06 pm Post subject:

RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: The right is the extentention of the Cogito into the external world and the actions which can be justifed with this extenion can only be thouse which to not interfear with the actions of others.

Are you saying that the only rights that really exist are negative rights?

Negative liberty yes.

No one has the right to advance their own will at the purposeful and direct disadvantage of others. Thus all rights must be non inferatory.

Thomas Hobbes wrote: "a free man is he that... is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do."

The problem with the claim that only negative liberty is valid because positive liberty would require taking from one to give to another is that even negative liberty has an enforcement cost associated with it. The line isn't as clear as some people think.

hmm ok, give us a example of where negative liberty would require phyiscal force simply to exist.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: The right is the extentention of the Cogito into the external world and the actions which can be justifed with this extenion can only be thouse which to not interfear with the actions of others.

Are you saying that the only rights that really exist are negative rights?

Negative liberty yes.

No one has the right to advance their own will at the purposeful and direct disadvantage of others. Thus all rights must be non inferatory.

Thomas Hobbes wrote: "a free man is he that... is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do."

The problem with the claim that only negative liberty is valid because positive liberty would require taking from one to give to another is that even negative liberty has an enforcement cost associated with it. The line isn't as clear as some people think.

hmm ok, give us a example of where negative liberty would require phyiscal force simply to exist.

Every single one of them requires enforcement. Without laws against murder, rape, and assault, and more importantly a system of law enforcement and a judiciary, the right not to be murdered, raped, or beaten is just a notion in peoples' minds. You can assert the right continuously as some criminal is beating you to death, but what good does it do?