• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

On Rights

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
So lately we’ve had discussions on what rights are, where they originate and what they mean to people, and I looked into one of my books and this passage. It covers the subject pretty well and I thought I’d post it for discussion.

From the political point of view there is but a single principle, - the sovereignty of man over himself. This sovereignty of one’s self over one’s self is called LIBERTY. Where two or several of these sovereigns associate, the state begins. But in this association there is no abdication. Each sovereignty parts with a certain portion of itself to form the common right. That portion is the same for all. There is equal contribution by all to the joint sovereignty. This identity of concession which each makes to all, is EQUALITY. The common right is nothing more or less than the protection of all, pouring its rays on each. The protection of each by all, is FRATERNITY.

Liberty is the summit, Equality the base. Equality is not all vegetation on a level, a society of big spears of grass and stunted oaks, a neighborhood of jealousies, emasculating each other. It is, civility, all aptitudes having equal opportunity; politically, all votes having equal weight, religiously, all consciences having equal rights.

Equality has an organ; - gratuitous and obligatory instruction. We must begin with the right to the alphabet. The primary school obligatory upon all; the higher school offered to all. Such is the law. From the same school for all springs equal society.


Thoughts?
 
So lately we’ve had discussions on what rights are, where they originate and what they mean to people, and I looked into one of my books and this passage. It covers the subject pretty well and I thought I’d post it for discussion.




Thoughts?

The quote you provided doesn't actually attempt to define what rights are or where they come from, it attempts to promote certain modern western ideals (liberty, equality, fraternity, etc.). So, I'm a bit confused about what you really want to discuss. Are you looking to discuss the things in the quote, or the question of where rights come from and what they are?
 
The quote you provided doesn't actually attempt to define what rights are or where they come from, it attempts to promote certain modern western ideals (liberty, equality, fraternity, etc.). So, I'm a bit confused about what you really want to discuss. Are you looking to discuss the things in the quote, or the question of where rights come from and what they are?

I'm asking for a discussion on the writing. I mentioned other discussions because this passage seems to cover all of those narratives; natural rights in particular, but taken as a whole, what do you think of the passage and what it says about rights and equality?
 
I'm asking for a discussion on the writing. I mentioned other discussions because this passage seems to cover all of those narratives; natural rights in particular, but taken as a whole, what do you think of the passage and what it says about rights and equality?

It's just one guy's opinion. I think there would be more to discuss if he had actually gone into the idea that these are natural rights and tried to build a case for it, but he doesn't. He simply gives his opinion. Obviously, his opinion would not have been shared by anyone in the Middle Ages, nor would it be shared in contemporary collectivist cultures. His is a typical modern western mindset.

I don't necessarily disagree with his views. But there's just isn't much to debate here because at no point did he attempt to make the case that these are natural rights or that they are ideals we should aspire to. He simply attempted to define them in ways he likes.
 
I'm asking for a discussion on the writing. I mentioned other discussions because this passage seems to cover all of those narratives; natural rights in particular, but taken as a whole, what do you think of the passage and what it says about rights and equality?

The quote is all head-in-the-clouds idealism with no connection to reality. A right must be taken by force and held by force. If it can be taken away or limited by anyone, then it is not a right,, but a privilege granted by a sovereign.
 
It's just one guy's opinion. I think there would be more to discuss if he had actually gone into the idea that these are natural rights and tried to build a case for it, but he doesn't. He simply gives his opinion. Obviously, his opinion would not have been shared by anyone in the Middle Ages, nor would it be shared in contemporary collectivist cultures. His is a typical modern western mindset.

I don't necessarily disagree with his views. But there's just isn't much to debate here because at no point did he attempt to make the case that these are natural rights or that they are ideals we should aspire to. He simply attempted to define them in ways he likes.

What is it about his views that you agree with?
 
The quote is all head-in-the-clouds idealism with no connection to reality. A right must be taken by force and held by force. If it can be taken away or limited by anyone, then it is not a right,, but a privilege granted by a sovereign.

What is the Bill of Rights, and do Americans have the right to a free education? And, do rights and education create equality?

As to holding them by force; do you hold your rights by force against your neighbor? Does he hold them by force against you? Why would you want to take away your neighbor's rights?
 
Aren't you the most anti-2nd amendment person on this site? Hilarious for you to pose this question to anyone.

No, I am not. And this is not a gun thread BTW.

Can you answer the question or comment on the OP? Or is this just a drive-by?
 
So lately we’ve had discussions on what rights are, where they originate and what they mean to people, and I looked into one of my books and this passage. It covers the subject pretty well and I thought I’d post it for discussion.




Thoughts?
That portion is the same for all. There is equal contribution by all to the joint sovereignty.
This bit is nonsense. Equal and equality are not two words that mean the same thing. That is the most often used mistake
Nor is there any concern that education must be equal for all in order for it to be a right for all. This actually cuts into your other so called right of "This sovereignty of one’s self over one’s self is called LIBERTY."
An education is a right, but all the government need supply is a good education. But if an individual wants more and can afford to do so then they have every right to supply their child with something better.

A right does not have to be political. A right exists between any two people or more who agree among themselves that it a right.
 
No person can possibly be a entity that is totally free from outside interference while living in the proximity of others, and the masses will always conspire against the individual who doesn't conform.

In other words........... your rights are what the others say they are.
 
No person can possibly be a entity that is totally free from outside interference while living in the proximity of others, and the masses will always conspire against the individual who doesn't conform.

In other words........... your rights are what the others say they are.

Well, at the very least what society collectively says they are and when society changes its mind, those rights evaporate. I really think people who don't understand that rights are human creations are idiots.
 
No person can possibly be a entity that is totally free from outside interference while living in the proximity of others, and the masses will always conspire against the individual who doesn't conform.

In other words........... your rights are what the others say they are.

Yes, we agree that "natural rights" do not exist. I would add that your conclusion is also covered in the writing here:
But in this association there is no abdication. Each sovereignty parts with a certain portion of itself to form the common right. That portion is the same for all. There is equal contribution by all to the joint sovereignty.
 
Well, at the very least what society collectively says they are and when society changes its mind, those rights evaporate. I really think people who don't understand that rights are human creations are idiots.

What does the OP passage say to you?
 
This bit is nonsense. Equal and equality are not two words that mean the same thing. That is the most often used mistake
Nor is there any concern that education must be equal for all in order for it to be a right for all. This actually cuts into your other so called right of "This sovereignty of one’s self over one’s self is called LIBERTY."
An education is a right, but all the government need supply is a good education. But if an individual wants more and can afford to do so then they have every right to supply their child with something better.

A right does not have to be political. A right exists between any two people or more who agree among themselves that it a right.

Sure, I can't disagree with your views, and I would add that the writer is concerned with bare bones of a person's rights and the duty to others to protect their own rights by protecting the rights of others. That is the foundation, in my view of our founding documents. That seems to be the thing that you disagree with... As for education, yes a better education is always a choice, however the basic intention of a free education to ensure and equal footing in the society is the point that writer is making. Do you agree with that?
 
Sure, I can't disagree with your views, and I would add that the writer is concerned with bare bones of a person's rights and the duty to others to protect their own rights by protecting the rights of others. That is the foundation, in my view of our founding documents. That seems to be the thing that you disagree with... As for education, yes a better education is always a choice, however the basic intention of a free education to ensure and equal footing in the society is the point that writer is making. Do you agree with that?

Not really, rights are not something natural nor as some claim backed or created by gods. A right is simply nothing more than two or more people agreeing. A single person on their own ( Not as in alone in a crowded city but as alone like the last man on earth alone.) has no rights whatsoever.

Your obsession with being equal has distorted your idea of a right. There is no equal. Jefferson was not making a statement about the state of men among men being equal, he was pointing out that just because one man claims to be a king another man need not kneel to him.

We are not all equal, that is patently obvious and nor should we distort rights in order to pretend we are.
 
So if rights are not natural then how are they not an oppression?
 
So if rights are not natural then how are they not an oppression?

Because it is protection for the individual against society, and protection for society against out of control individuals.
 
Rights are the ultimate expression of collectivism. They are the pinnacle of what humans can achieve when they do what Evolution has evolved them to do.

Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk
 
Because it is protection for the individual against society, and protection for society against out of control individuals.

But it is limiting their action many times without their consent at all. How is that not oppression? The idea of rights is supposed to be the expression of the individuals sovernighty, but under the theory that government or society creates rights it's really nothing more than a limiting factor.
 
But it is limiting their action many times without their consent at all. How is that not oppression? The idea of rights is supposed to be the expression of the individuals sovernighty, but under the theory that government or society creates rights it's really nothing more than a limiting factor.

No, not at all. Only the most disturbed individuals would think that.
 
No, not at all. Only the most disturbed individuals would think that.

Under your theory rights are nothing more than the decrees of men on how other men should act based on nothing more than their opinion. Under that theory the idea of rights are perhaps one of the worst of tyrannies and absurdities in existence.
 
Under your theory rights are nothing more than the decrees of men on how other men should act based on nothing more than their opinion. Under that theory the idea of rights are perhaps one of the worst of tyrannies and absurdities in existence.

Can you demonstrate that rights are more than what people think about them? Theories are models about what people think about something. Sometimes, those theories are based on testable and verifiable facts. Can you show how to verify the claims of a 'theory of rights' to show it is more than what people think about it?
 
Can you demonstrate that rights are more than what people think about them? Theories are models about what people think about something. Sometimes, those theories are based on testable and verifiable facts. Can you show how to verify the claims of a 'theory of rights' to show it is more than what people think about it?

Asking me for counter theories is just you avoiding the implications of your beliefs. It would seem to me your theory would lead to rights being a tyranny and a fraud perpetrated on the people. Why not just call rights laws, so to not give people the illusion they are of higher importance?
 
Back
Top Bottom