• 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!

I have a "right" to...

I have a "right" to...


  • Total voters
    84
Yes, those are some of the basic tenets of 'Realism' in the context of international politics.
 
I don't think that rights between animals have any meaning. "Animal rights" only exist within human societies, they don't mean squat on the savannah.

To determine meaning of such rights among animals, I would again reflect on the alpha male of a wolf pack: the purpose of his right, his authority, to claim the first quarter of any kill is to sustain him as the primary warrior and protector of the pack. For another wolf to deny the alpha the first quarter is to undermine the safety of the entire pack, and so all of the wolves agree to the alpha's right and mutually punish violators.

We might say that this right is universal, because any wolf who meets the criteria will be afforded that right. However, modern notions of what constitutes "universal" tend to insist that a right must have no criteria at all, which in turn dissolves the right altogether, so such an argument is problematic.
 
I'm not talking about "animal rights" lol. Maybe your joking? Take Jerry's examples posted above.

for example: A territorial animal gains a 'right' to a particular territory or an animal in conflict for a mate wins the 'right' to the prize.

I think those are good examples because they show how the successful use of force established authority to eat from a certain land or breed with a given mate.

Authority is established through the aggressive use of force.
 
I think those are good examples because they show how the successful use of force established authority to eat from a certain land or breed with a given mate.

Authority is established through the aggressive use of force.

And, as sociologists would claim, the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
 
Human rights violation as defined by the UN charter...

I wasn't invited to be on that Charter, when the boat sailed I still had my integrity. I'd no desire to be on the same boat as China, Somalia, and Libya as they sit on the UN Human Rights Commission.

I guess I'll just have to use my own common sense to decide what constitutes a violation of human rights.

Stealing guns is one of them.
 
To determine meaning of such rights among animals, I would again reflect on the alpha male of a wolf pack: the purpose of his right, his authority, to claim the first quarter of any kill is to sustain him as the primary warrior and protector of the pack. For another wolf to deny the alpha the first quarter is to undermine the safety of the entire pack, and so all of the wolves agree to the alpha's right and mutually punish violators.

Except alpha males only remain alpha males so long as they are the strongest in the pack. Alpha males tend to change regularly because stronger, more fit males come along and challenge them and win. There is no "right" to be alpha male, the loser of a dominance battle can't say "hey, I have a right to that position even if I lose!" There is no right whatsoever, the victor simply has specific abilities while they hold the position and very few abilities when and if they lose the position.

We might say that this right is universal, because any wolf who meets the criteria will be afforded that right. However, modern notions of what constitutes "universal" tend to insist that a right must have no criteria at all, which in turn dissolves the right altogether, so such an argument is problematic.

How is that a right to begin with? It's like someone who starts a company and is, for all intents and purposes, the "alpha male", asserting that they have a right to control the company. That's all well and good until the board of directors tosses them out on their ass. People tend to confuse "right" and "ability" as if they are the same thing. They are not.
 
I'm not talking about "animal rights" lol. Maybe your joking? Take Jerry's examples posted above.

for example: A territorial animal gains a 'right' to a particular territory or an animal in conflict for a mate wins the 'right' to the prize.

That's not a right, that's an ability. They are not the same thing.
 
I think you're misinterpreting here. The animal acquires the right through its actions. Marking the territory is the ability, fighting off competitors is the ability. These abilities gain the right.

Also, with the example of the alpha male, he is given a 'right' to the choicest part of the kill, a right he no longer has when he loses the ability to be the alpha male.
 
Except alpha males only remain alpha males so long as they are the strongest in the pack.

Yes, I agree. They have to qualify, meet the criteria of the right in order to recieve it. As soon as they don't qualify, they don't have the right.

Alpha males tend to change regularly because stronger, more fit males come along and challenge them and win.

That's a great proof of my point. Any wolf who meets the criteria is given the right. Wolves qualify and disqualify all the time, repeatedly demonstrating how my point is correct. No qualified wolf is ever denied the right. Every disqualified wolf is denied the right.

There is no "right" to be alpha male, the loser of a dominance battle can't say "hey, I have a right to that position even if I lose!"

Here again, I agree completely. Winning the challenge is one of the criteria, so if you don't win, you don't fulfill the criteria and therefore do not have the right.

the victor simply has specific abilities while they hold the position and very few abilities when and if they lose the position.

I couldn't have said it better myself. The victor holds the right while the looser does not.

How is that a right to begin with? It's like someone who starts a company and is, for all intents and purposes, the "alpha male", asserting that they have a right to control the company. That's all well and good until the board of directors tosses them out on their ass. People tend to confuse "right" and "ability" as if they are the same thing. They are not.

There's nothing magical about a right where it will apply to you if you don't meet the criteria.
 
Last edited:
I think you're misinterpreting here. The animal acquires the right through its actions. Marking the territory is the ability, fighting off competitors is the ability. These abilities gain the right.

Also, with the example of the alpha male, he is given a 'right' to the choicest part of the kill, a right he no longer has when he loses the ability to be the alpha male.
I agree, and reiterate in my own words:

If a right is authority, then that authority is given when a wolf demonstrates ability. When the wolf looses the ability, the authority is given to another.

When a candidate is duly elected for the office of the President, that person then has the right to take office. No one can step in and say "even though Congress certified your electoral victory, you can't take office". That candidate has the authority to assume office and has various tools at hand to enforce such if necessary.

If you fulfill the criteria to vote, meaning you can prove your citizenship and residency, then you have the right to vote. No one has the authority to step in and keep you from voting when you have demonstrated that you fulfill the criteria.
 
Last edited:
I say healthcare, food, water, and "other." As a society everyone has the right to healthcare, to food, to water....
Yes.
What you do NOT have a right to is to have these things provided to you by somene else -- THAT is a pivilege.
 
And, as sociologists would claim, the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Which is absolutely false.
All powers posessed by the state are derived from a right posessed by the people of that state. This includes the legitimate use of force.
 
I wasn't invited to be on that Charter, when the boat sailed I still had my integrity. I'd no desire to be on the same boat as China, Somalia, and Libya as they sit on the UN Human Rights Commission.

I guess I'll just have to use my own common sense to decide what constitutes a violation of human rights.

Stealing guns is one of them.

And in a country where they dont recognize those rights...do those citizens HAVE the same rights?

This argument has become quite tiresome...more 'agree to disagree.'
 
The correct answer is...

Other: I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that is all.
 
Yes.
What you do NOT have a right to is to have these things provided to you by somene else -- THAT is a pivilege.

Somebody once wrote that the entire U.S. Constitution was written to secure the unalienable rights of American citizens. And an unalienable right is that which requires no contribution from another person other than his/her non interference.

My rights end at the precise point at which your rights are infringed or threatened.

So, IMO, you are correct that there is no right written into the American ideal that somebody else would be required to provide what somebody else wants or even needs.
 
Last edited:
Which is absolutely false.
All powers posessed by the state are derived from a right posessed by the people of that state. This includes the legitimate use of force.

That's true, only because the state is an extension of the people themselves. I'm really tired of people acting like the state is a foreign body that has nothing whatsoever to do with the society which placed it in power.
 
Somebody once wrote that the entire U.S. Constitution was written to secure the unalienable rights of American citizens. And an unalienable right is that which requires no contribution from another person other than his/her non interference.

inalienable |inˈālēənəbəl|
adjective
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor : freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights.

So, IMO, you are correct that there is no right written into the American ideal that somebody else would be required to provide what somebody else wants or even needs.

I wasn't aware that 'the american ideal' was a written document that was effective law.

Other: I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that is all.

Thats the declaration of independence :doh.
 
Our Fore Fathers didn't address the right to food and water, because in their day, it had not yet become so completely owned. Hunting areas and game were plentiful. Water was in great supply compared to the population of the time.

Since then, the Army Corp of Engineers has built hundreds of dams designed to fail, all around the country's waterways. Hunting is extremely limited. A duck is much cheaper at the store compared to the licenses and stamps required to shoot one.

We refer to water, sewer, commissaries, and the electric power grid as our infrastructure. That being a system of necessities, built by, and for use by our collective butts. Actually, just the collective butts of what we call productive Americans. Nonproductive Americans need the infrastructure too, so we try to help them until they can help themselves.

Anyone who doesn't believe that food and water are American rights, needs to get out of the 19th century.
 
Our Fore Fathers didn't address the right to food and water, because in their day, it had not yet become so completely owned. Hunting areas and game were plentiful. Water was in great supply compared to the population of the time.
And yet, both were FAR harder to get than they are today. So much for that.

The main point here is that having a right to x does not equate to having the right to have x provided to you by others.
 
And yet, both were FAR harder to get than they are today. So much for that.

The main point here is that having a right to x does not equate to having the right to have x provided to you by others.
If 'X' is water. And all of it is owned by someone else. They had better not be stingy. Better to be alive.
 
If 'X' is water. And all of it is owned by someone else. They had better not be stingy. Better to be alive.
You have EVERY right to posess as much water as you want -- but it is up to you to provide the means to obtain that water, and no one else.

I'm not sure how you think you have a right to someone else's property.
 
I'm not sure how you think you have a right to someone else's property.

Just do it the good old American way, declare them a threat to our security and occupy their ass.
 
Just do it the good old American way, declare them a threat to our security and occupy their ass.
Thank you for adding nothing of value to the discussion -- glad to see you continue to go with what you know.
 
Some peole seem to be under the mistaken impression that we have some kind of rights in this world. BS! We have temporary priviledges determined by your particular flavor of govermnent at the time.

George Carlin on our "Rights":

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F1Lq1uFcAE"]YouTube- George Carlin - Rights[/ame]
 
Back
Top Bottom