so what do *you* consider a *right*?

[Peek a Boo]

with all this talk in the news about "basic rights" I'm interested in hearing what others consider a "right" --especially a BASIC right. I tend to be fairly Objectivist/conservative in my leanings, but I never quite considered legal marriage, driver licenses, or healthcare a *basic human right.*

 

 

for the sake of discussion, I'd prefer to hear more about foundational reasoning; not so much specific rights, but a philosophy that underscores your belief about ALL "basic" rights. Even a link where someone else has already done the legwork of explaining your ideals is great. any takers? :) i probably won't respond on this thread -- i mostly just wanna watch and learn. ;)

[Julie in Austin]

I offer this in the spirit of information, not debate.

 

I'm LDS, and our modern scripture includes this: that governments are to "secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."

 

So that would be a starting point for me. While I support things like single-payer health care, I do not consider health services a "right."

[newlifemom]

i probably won't respond on this thread -- i mostly just wanna watch and learn. ;)

 

:lurk5::bigear:

 

Yeah right. :lol:

 

 

 

 

:leaving:

[Peek a Boo]

:lurk5::bigear:

 

Yeah right. :lol:

 

 

 

 

:leaving:

 

LOL! :lurk5:

 

[where's the duct-tape-over-mouth smiley? hee hee....]

[LauraGB]

Air and personal thought/intuition/motivation.

 

Beyond that, as an adult, everything else is earned, imo - food, house, clothes, etc. And that which can't be earned is of personal yearning (marriage, family, etc) and must be personally accomplished (meaning it doesn't have to be either approved by nor shared by any other source).

[lgm]

Freedom

 

One should be free to live life, making one's own decisions without being controlled by others. The ability to live freely should not be taken by others, whether that is by actions such as seizing and monopolizing water, stealing my time without my agreement, or violating my personal space.

Edited January 3, 2010 by lgm

[Dayle in Guatemala]

Freedom

 

:iagree: This is the most basic *right* there is. Everything else stems from the freedom to choose, pursue, and achieve.

[Jennifer in NH]

Life. If we don't start with that one, there isn't much point to any others.

[Hedgehogs4]

freedom of speech

freedom of press

right to speedy trial,

right to trial by jury,

right to peaceful assembly

freedom of religion (without restriction as to what, where and when I can speak about what I believe with regard to who it may or may not offend.)

 

These are rights guaranteed by my constitution. However, they are governed by a human, fallible institution, so my expectations of having these rights fulfilled are shallow at best.

 

By God, I am promised the right to eternal life if I acknowledge Jesus as His son--his sacrifice, resurrection and ascension--and essentially, that is all I need or expect in this life. This is where I put my hope and trust.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Hedgehogs4
punctution

[Peela]

I dont feel comfortable with the term "rights" any more. Rights seems to be about makng more laws to me. And the less we care about our neighbour, the less we see ourselves as planetary citizens, the less we recognise everyone as equal, the less we think globally and instead think only of our own small world and what our needs are...the more we need to legislate for "rights". I don't think it's a fundamental, natural concept...I think its a man made one that we had to make up to protect the vulnerable who are being abused by those who don't care. And that's all of us, to some extent. There really *are* thousands of children dying right this moment from hunger and thirst.

"Rights" may be a useful stepping stone as a concept to present to those who dont have empathy...but to me it is simply self evident that if we consider ourselves to have rights, we should also be considering the animals to have rights, the plants to have rights, the planet to have rights. And it all melts down. If we think in terms of "rights" its nearly always in terms of "our" rights. And yes

As a concept to make laws on...well, ok, but where do we stop? We make more and more laws, and then people dont even have to think for themselves any more. And those who find a way around, break the laws.

I dont think "rights" has a firm platform in the beginning. It may be useful as a concept to someone who hasnt considered that black people are equal to whites, or women are equal to men...but can't we get beyond that? Apparently not yet. And yes, apparently we do need laws to protect people, but the question was asking about my deeper philosophy about rights, and I think it falls apart if you look too deeply.

[m0mmaBuck]

Life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness.

[JWSJ]

"Rights" are a social construction made and maintained by the state.

 

They can be eliminated.

 

For example, many nations regularly eliminate an individual's "right" to life.

 

These days, "rights" is just a buzzword.

[Stacy in NJ]

The Constitution provides only negative rights; the founders were very deliberate in structuring it in that way.

 

I'll go with.......

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[Stacy in NJ]

freedom of speech

freedom of press

right to speedy trial,

right to trial by jury,

right to peaceful assembly

freedom of religion (without restriction as to what, where and when I can speak about what I believe with regard to who it may or may not offend.)

 

These are rights guaranteed by my constitution. However, they are governed by a human, fallible institution, so my expectations of having these rights fulfilled are shallow at best.

 

 

 

Not being snarky here, just trying to be accurate. Our Constitution does not provide these rights. It guarantees that the government shall pass no law restricting these items.

[Renai]

LOL! :lurk5:

 

[where's the duct-tape-over-mouth smiley? hee hee....]

 

Not only did I find the smilie , I found the t-shirt http://www.zazzle.com/duct_tape_smiley_tshirt-235803608384000782.

 

Other than that, I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this thread. :tongue_smilie:

[KidsHappen]

LOL! :lurk5:

 

[where's the duct-tape-over-mouth smiley? hee hee....]

 

Elaine had the duct tape last I saw. :tongue_smilie:

[JWSJ]

Does that mean you do not believe that there are any basic human rights you consider worth fighting for or supporting?

 

Basic human rights are worth fighting for.

 

However, I do not believe most of the general public have any real idea what a "right" is.

 

Personally, I wish for the right to be left alone. But, I have limited government leanings...

[Suzanne in ABQ]

Not only did I find the smilie , I found the t-shirt http://www.zazzle.com/duct_tape_smiley_tshirt-235803608384000782.

 

Other than that, I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this thread. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

Hey T,

You rock. :)

[tex-mex]

In the spirit of discussion, I challenge these assertions. No one on the planet is completely free from being controlled by others. The mere fact that we are subject to the laws of the land means that we are controlled by others, doesn't it?

 

Ethically, you do bring up a valid point. We think of freedom as a right, but it is conditional upon some group or force controlling the parameters of our being able to enjoy freedom. Someone has to work to decide on the boundaries of our freedoms, culturally we all have to agree with each other what social mores are defined as being "freedom", and pretty much it boils down to some form of control. :confused: Ironically, I feel our freedoms are slowly eroding away and control being more obvious. (i.e. TSA screenings)

[tex-mex]

I dont feel comfortable with the term "rights" any more. Rights seems to be about makng more laws to me. And the less we care about our neighbour, the less we see ourselves as planetary citizens, the less we recognise everyone as equal, the less we think globally and instead think only of our own small world and what our needs are...the more we need to legislate for "rights". I don't think it's a fundamental, natural concept...I think its a man made one that we had to make up to protect the vulnerable who are being abused by those who don't care. And that's all of us, to some extent. There really *are* thousands of children dying right this moment from hunger and thirst.

"Rights" may be a useful stepping stone as a concept to present to those who dont have empathy...but to me it is simply self evident that if we consider ourselves to have rights, we should also be considering the animals to have rights, the plants to have rights, the planet to have rights. And it all melts down. If we think in terms of "rights" its nearly always in terms of "our" rights. And yes

As a concept to make laws on...well, ok, but where do we stop? We make more and more laws, and then people dont even have to think for themselves any more. And those who find a way around, break the laws.

I dont think "rights" has a firm platform in the beginning. It may be useful as a concept to someone who hasnt considered that black people are equal to whites, or women are equal to men...but can't we get beyond that? Apparently not yet. And yes, apparently we do need laws to protect people, but the question was asking about my deeper philosophy about rights, and I think it falls apart if you look too deeply.

:iagree:

[tex-mex]

Not only did I find the smilie , I found the t-shirt http://www.zazzle.com/duct_tape_smiley_tshirt-235803608384000782.

 

Other than that, I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this thread. :tongue_smilie:

 

Love it!! :D

[AuntieM]

Renai, you are the icon-finder extraordinaire. Someone (more creative than I) needs to dub you with a great title that reflects your talent!

 

As to the question of rights... that's something to really think about. The things that immediately come to mind are those associated with being born a citizen of a Republic founded on the importance of certain freedoms. However, if my situation were different, less "free," how would I (could I?) define the term, "rights"? I can offer no quick answer.

 

But I will share that these days, at least here in the USA, I think there's a fuzzy line between rights and entitlements. Laura GB, I appreciate your perspective on earning things.

[asta]

The Constitution provides only negative rights; the founders were very deliberate in structuring it in that way.

 

I'll go with.......

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

I concur, but one runs into trouble in a couple of places:

 

One: Only the United States of America has a Constitution that says that.

 

and

 

Two: Creator does not equal Christian god.

 

(I'm not saying Stacy said it did, but quite often debates turn in that direction)

[pqr]

freedom of speech

freedom of press

right to speedy trial,

right to trial by jury,

right to peaceful assembly

freedom of religion (without restriction as to what, where and when I can speak about what I believe with regard to who it may or may not offend.)

 

These are rights guaranteed by my constitution. However, they are governed by a human, fallible institution, so my expectations of having these rights fulfilled are shallow at best.

 

 

 

Many of the rights listed in our Constitution are, in my view, the rights of a free people and you neglected one of the most important ot these. A right that is enshrined in our Constitution.

 

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms. It is this right that protects the others from "fallible" institutions. It is also this right that is constantly under attack and, in many nations, (obvsiously those without our Constitution) has been eliminated (though there are a fair number in this land who would see it eliminated here too). It is also this right that was one of the first eliminated by the likes of Hitler, Lenin, Mao and a gallery of rogues.

 

I view the right to protect myself and my family from threat as a basic right of a free people.

Edited January 3, 2010 by pqr

[lgm]

In the spirit of discussion, I challenge these assertions. No one on the planet is completely free from being controlled by others. The mere fact that we are subject to the laws of the land means that we are controlled by others, doesn't it?

 

Yes. Many laws in many countries and states do unnecessarily impinge on personal freedom.

 

According to Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, it seems that there were, at some points in global history, societies where people were able to be free. Once the population increased though, bullying and seizure began.

Edited January 3, 2010 by lgm

[Snickerdoodle]

I'll just skip in add a thread where a similar topic was discussed titled:

 

By what authority do we claim "rights"?

[Haiku]

I think that the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being eclipsed by the idea that your rights depend on how much you can afford. Rights are becoming another commodity, and I think that people in America are becoming less and less able to see things in any other light than their financial worth.

 

Tara

[pqr]

I dont feel comfortable with the term "rights" any more. Rights seems to be about makng more laws to me. And the less we care about our neighbour, the less we see ourselves as planetary citizens, the less we recognise everyone as equal, the less we think globally and instead think only of our own small world and what our needs are...the more we need to legislate for "rights". I don't think it's a fundamental, natural concept...I think its a man made one that we had to make up to protect the vulnerable who are being abused by those who don't care. And that's all of us, to some extent. There really *are* thousands of children dying right this moment from hunger and thirst.

"Rights" may be a useful stepping stone as a concept to present to those who dont have empathy...but to me it is simply self evident that if we consider ourselves to have rights, we should also be considering the animals to have rights, the plants to have rights, the planet to have rights. And it all melts down. If we think in terms of "rights" its nearly always in terms of "our" rights. And yes

As a concept to make laws on...well, ok, but where do we stop? We make more and more laws, and then people dont even have to think for themselves any more. And those who find a way around, break the laws.

I dont think "rights" has a firm platform in the beginning. It may be useful as a concept to someone who hasnt considered that black people are equal to whites, or women are equal to men...but can't we get beyond that? Apparently not yet. And yes, apparently we do need laws to protect people, but the question was asking about my deeper philosophy about rights, and I think it falls apart if you look too deeply.

 

The idea of rights is just that. They are rights and do not require laws to provide them, though unfortunately sometimes they are needed to protect them. Sometimes they even need a military to defend them.

 

As to a planetary citizen......well I am an American and my passport states that. I have no wish to be part of some great nondescript mishmash of contradictory views and beliefs, or to view myself as a citizen of anything other than my nation. Despite all the attacks on individual rights, in the States, we still have far more than other nations and (FOR ME) to think of myself as anything but an American would be a step down. My nation is a melting pot, but we do have a culture and that is based on individual rights. Many other nations have similar values but not all nations do and therein lies the rub.

 

Much of the rest of the world is also busy trying to infringe on rights, one only need look at recent laws in Europe, or the imposition of Shari'a Law on non-Moslems, or the refusal in your nation to accept the right of a man to defend his family and property. Further, the concept of rights is not the same in the US and in places where slavery was, within living memory, practiced or where a woman may not leave the home without an escort. I want no part of that so as to being a Planetary citizen....no thank you!

 

Plants having rights? Well don't tell my lawn mower that, or my son as he mows the lawn, or the neighbor who might get a little irritated if I did not. When I cut down a tree have I now violated the rights of that tree?

 

Lack of empathy???? How do you draw a connection between those of us who believe in individual rights and strive to defend them for all our fellow citizens with having a lack of empathy? Arguing, debating, fighting for the rights of others IS empathy.

 

Did you really mean what I think you meant when you said rights "may be useful as a concept to someone who hasnt considered that black people are equal to whites, or women are equal to men..."? Not only is that incredibly insulting, but would seem to indicate a lack of historical understanding. I suppose that Wollstonecraft in her volume A Vindication of the Rights of Women was using it as a useful concept because she hadn't considered that women are equal to men. Need I quote Wilberforce, the abolitionists, King, etc to demonstrate that all these individuals believed in this concept?

Edited January 3, 2010 by pqr

[Mama Lynx]

You live happily in your house, minding your own business, going about your day.

 

Some stranger walks into your house and helps himself to your food, takes a couple of your belongings that he quite likes, and leaves.

 

You're okay with that?

[asta]

You live happily in your house, minding your own business, going about your day.

 

Some stranger walks into your house and helps himself to your food, takes a couple of your belongings that he quite likes, and leaves.

 

You're okay with that?

 

Well, that depends.

 

If I were living in a Navajo or Hopi community, yes.

 

We all tend to look at life through our own goggles.

 

 

a

[pqr]

Well, that depends.

 

If I were living in a Navajo or Hopi community, yes.

 

We all tend to look at life through our own goggles.

 

 

a

Which is exactly why I want absolutely nothing to do with this "Planetary Citizen" stuff.

Edited January 3, 2010 by pqr

[Mama Lynx]

Well, that depends.

 

If I were living in a Navajo or Hopi community, yes.

 

We all tend to look at life through our own goggles.

 

 

a

 

 

Do you live in a Navajo or Hopi community?

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Well, that depends.

 

If I were living in a Navajo or Hopi community, yes.

 

We all tend to look at life through our own goggles.

 

 

a

 

 

If you live in such a community, would it be ok if someone from outside that community-say from France-came in and took your favorite kitchen knife and a good book to read on the plane home?

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

that governments are to "secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."

 

 

 

I really like the way this is stated.

 

I also think that no discussion of rights is complete without a discussion of responsibilities, the two are not mutally exclusive.

 

I agree with those who say that two fundamental responsibilities are : Honoring our commitments (do what you say you are going to do), and do not encroach on other persons or their property.

 

Rights without responsibilities can cause chaos.

[Jenny in Atl]

Which is exactly why I want absolutely nothing to do with this "Planetary Citizen" stuff.

 

Ah, but even in the good old USA, we don't all wear the same pair of goggles. I think no alcohol sales on Sunday to be silly, but I'm out numbered by others who wish to impose their faith/belief system upon me. No one is ever going to live in any one community and be totally free (within reason).

 

I'm not even sure if I even believe in "rights" as a given. I think rights are something humans have constructed by themselves over time; come into some understanding of the concept of or a belief in something called rights, and fought for them, seeing their worth in the name of survival. But, then my goggles are always a bit on the gray side.

[Elaine]

Elaine had the duct tape last I saw. :tongue_smilie:

 

I believe you are looking for .

Edited January 4, 2010 by Elaine

[Elaine]

Do you live in a Navajo or Hopi community?

 

:lol:

[pqr]

Ah, but even in the good old USA, we don't all wear the same pair of goggles.

.

 

 

Point taken, hard enough in the USA, all the more reason that I want nothing to do with this "Planetary Citizen" stuff.

[Mama Lynx]

We don't all wear the same goggles. However, if we choose to be a part of a human society in civilization, some things must be agreed upon.

 

The only way to have complete freedom is to live apart from others, and their needs and wishes. When we choose to live with others, we must take the other needs and wishes into account. Some needs and wishes are basic enough and common enough that we consider them to be "rights," because without them, life in society becomes ... problematic. (Understatement.)

[asta]

If you live in such a community, would it be ok if someone from outside that community-say from France-came in and took your favorite kitchen knife and a good book to read on the plane home?

 

Dang, that was mean.

 

 

a

[asta]

Do you live in a Navajo or Hopi community?

 

Actually, I spent a great deal of my life in SW native american communities.

 

 

Like I said, goggles.

 

 

a

[asta]

And why do the tags say "Americans only"?

 

 

a

[lionfamily1999]

Basic rights? Life and the right to live. In a perfect world, we'd have the right to say, think, and do everything that did not enfringe upon another adult's rights. I specify "adult," because I believe part and parcel with life and living is raising our children as we see fit and much of raising is a violation of their perfect world rights of saying, thinking and doing as they wish :p I believe we have the right to life itself, and the right to living, meaning the right to create a home or family and feed them and nurture them as we see fit. One person's frugality is another's neglect. One person's morality is another's tyranny. I believe that we have the right to live according to our own beliefs, to raise our children in those beliefs, maintain our families in those beliefs and that others, who disagree should go concentrate on their own lives.

 

Does that mean you do not believe that there are any basic human rights you consider worth fighting for or supporting?

Supporting, yes... fighting for... well... I'm starting to say there isn't much at all worth fighting for, if fighting means death, war, maiming, etc.

Not only did I find the smilie , I found the t-shirt http://www.zazzle.com/duct_tape_smiley_tshirt-235803608384000782.

 

Other than that, I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this thread. :tongue_smilie:

You're so great :)

I really like the way this is stated.

 

I also think that no discussion of rights is complete without a discussion of responsibilities, the two are not mutally exclusive.

 

I agree with those who say that two fundamental responsibilities are : Honoring our commitments (do what you say you are going to do), and do not encroach on other persons or their property.

 

Rights without responsibilities can cause chaos.

:iagree:

[kewb]

Basic Human Rights as I see them:

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Access to quality medical care. As a society it is in everyone's best interest to have healthy people in it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

[Murphy101]

Many of the rights listed in our Constitution are, in my view, the rights of a free people and you neglected one of the most important ot these. A right that is enshrined in our Constitution.

 

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms. It is this right that protects the others from "fallible" institutions. It is also this right that is constantly under attack and, in many nations, (obvsiously those without our Constitution) has been eliminated (though there are a fair number in this land who would see it eliminated here too). It is also this right that was one of the first eliminated by the likes of Hitler, Lenin, Mao and a gallery of rogues.

 

I view the right to protect myself and my family from threat as a basic right of a free people.

 

I agree. I will also note that IMO most rights comes to us at birth. We naturally speak, seek food and water and shelter, are free, and will protect ourselves and those we love.

 

Mechanisms must be put in place to forcibly change or modify a right.

 

I would like to see more discussion about what Tara wrote. For example, in the USofA I might have the supposed right to seek legal action - but I only have that right if I can afford to hire a lawyer.

 

I think that the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being eclipsed by the idea that your rights depend on how much you can afford. Rights are becoming another commodity, and I think that people in America are becoming less and less able to see things in any other light than their financial worth.

 

Tara

[lionfamily1999]

Basic Human Rights as I see them:

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Access to quality medical care. As a society it is in everyone's best interest to have healthy people in it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

I do think we should have access to medical care. It should be there and we should be able to take advantage of it if we wish to do so. However, society's definition of a healthy person could differ from an idividual's definition of health. I would not care to allow society the right to dictate health to myself or family.

[Jenny in Atl]

Dang, that was mean.

 

 

a

 

The joke is that in the past and even to this day, the US government, U.S. /international corporations, and yes many of the so-called faith based relief organizations have gone into communities, world wide, and rape them of their resources, faith, and culture.

 

It's easy at this point and laugh at Asta's Hopi reference, but our majority ancestors (white Europeans) did take their "stuff", and still have never fully given much ,if anything back.

 

Again, rights are very much dependent on who has the power. In many Native American cultures there is a shared sense of freedom and belongings. I gather it made them all too trusting when it came to the Europeans. Oh, but in the end they never had a chance...

[kewb]

I do think we should have access to medical care. It should be there and we should be able to take advantage of it if we wish to do so. However, society's definition of a healthy person could differ from an idividual's definition of health. I would not care to allow society the right to dictate health to myself or family.

 

You do have a point there. Access and forced medical care are different things.

[Jenny in Atl]

Point taken, hard enough in the USA, all the more reason that I want nothing to do with this "Planetary Citizen" stuff.

 

In the end I think you won't have a choice. I don't fear the government as much as I do multi-international corps. Governments are becoming and many already are puppets of these huge entities. It will be more like being a citizen of the GE nation. :glare:

[lionfamily1999]

The joke is that in the past and even to this day, the US government, U.S. /international corporations, and yes many of the so-called faith based relief organizations have gone into communities, world wide, and rape them of their resources, faith, and culture.

 

It's easy at this point and laugh at Asta's Hopi reference, but our majority ancestors (white Europeans) did take their "stuff", and still have never fully given much ,if anything back.

 

Again, rights are very much dependent on who has the power. In many Native American cultures there is a shared sense of freedom and belongings. I gather it made them all too trusting when it came to the Europeans. Oh, but in the end they never had a chance...

I've always wondered at this idea that we, the descendants, should reimburse those screwed (for lack of a better term) by our ancestors.