We grant the rights, as a society, that we woulkd wish to be granted to ourselves. There are no "rights" other than those which the collective has consented to. Without the collective consent, we have facism, communist dictatorship, or a distributed/petty tyranny. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Re:virus: On rights
« Reply #1 on: 2003-10-22 10:57:08 »
Simul, just a minor issue of etiquette. If there is already a recent active thread on a topic, it is better not to start a new one on the same topic except if you want to tackle it in a completely different way.
This is for two reasons. Fist, by sticking to a single thread we can go deeper into the topic and also make it easier for a reader to get the full picture at one place. Second, if there are many one-post threads, other threads scroll down and disappear from the first page of the BBS view.
Re:virus: On rights
« Reply #2 on: 2003-10-22 17:36:49 »
Quote:
We grant the rights, as a society, that we woulkd wish to be granted to ourselves. There are no "rights" other than those which the collective has consented to. Without the collective consent, we have facism, communist dictatorship, or a distributed/petty tyranny.
There is no such thing as "collective consent". There might be majority rulership, but that is pretty tyrannical in itself.
There are a number of fundamental principles that need to be respected in order for human social order to form, hold, and grow. These fundamental principles, when accepted and recognized as rights by the members of a society will allow this society to prosper.
Some writers have called those fundamental principles "natural rights", which I concent might not be agreed upon by everybody; yet any society that ignores these rights or principles is doomed to collapse, regardless of whatever decision-making and power structure it adopted.
The statements quoted above mislead me into thinking that:
whatever this "collective" decides is going to be for the good of the individual members of the society being affected,
by virtue of the decisions being made "collectively", the society will avoid facism, communism, and tyranny.
Both of these conclusions are obviously wrong for the reasons stated above. All this said, I might have read too much in the original author's message so I apologize if I attributed meaning and intentions that were not meant by the author.
Re:virus: On rights
« Reply #3 on: 2003-10-23 06:14:34 »
Quote:
"Some writers have called those fundamental principles "natural rights", which I concent might not be agreed upon by everybody; yet any society that ignores these rights or principles is doomed to collapse, regardless of whatever decision-making and power structure it adopted."
As I recall, Hobbes described only one natural right, that of self defence, since it was the only form of right that would not be alienated in a state of nature (and although the idea of such a body as a government having it within its power to bestow or deprive populaces of rights may be unpalatable, the fact is that they do indeed have this capability).
There are certainly a set of rights that have been established by tradition, but in practice these vary considerably between states, which makes it rather difficult to speak of them as being 'natural.' The most glaring example if one alluded to above; that the US constitution in permitting the formation of militias has led to the notion of a right to bear arms, a right few (or none even?) other states happen to recognise.
For myself, It seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that rights are established by popular sovereignty; it seems equally difficult to avoid the conclusion that this does indeed run the risk of tyranny of the majority.
Kharin has spoken bravely and, I believe, rightly.
To me the rights which society (my governors, yuck) grants to me are very much like the protection it claims to provide via the police. The facts do not match the claims - with very few exceptions, the police can only show up <I>after</I> I have been harmed. Don't get me wrong; I very much appreciate all the rights and protections I enjoy in the USA. But when we set out to define and understand the nature of concepts and speech such as rights, can we not be brave enough to dig deeply - to the root of the thing? I, for one, prefer to see things as they are.
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003
Re:virus: On rights
« Reply #5 on: 2003-10-23 14:25:28 »
In my view, the word "right" itself is way overused, too often misused (by myself as much as anyone else), and only rarely understood to mean the same thing by two people.
This said, you will find authors - Locke and Rothbard amongst others- who support the concept of natural rights, and who include therein all sorts of things like right of self-ownership, right to self-defence, right to property, etc.
I don't mean to defend the actual concept of "natural rights" as it is understood by these authors; it's been dismantled by many and I find myself in agreement that ultimately, it is up to whatever sovereign power to recognize the need for, and establish a system of rights. This would apply equally in a society where the individuals are only sovereign over themselves, as to a society where a self-appointed dictator is sovereign over everyone, or to one where the leader is elected through some defined process.
What I am defending is that given the present nature of human beings, there are certain unavoidable principles that govern human social interactions and ultimately the evolution of social order. These principles demand the recognition of particular rights, which if ignored by a sovereign power (individualist or collectivist), will ultimately lead to the downfall of the social order.
Re:virus: On rights
« Reply #6 on: 2003-10-24 05:38:51 »
Quote:
"I don't mean to defend the actual concept of "natural rights" as it is understood by these authors; it's been dismantled by many and I find myself in agreement that ultimately, it is up to whatever sovereign power to recognize the need for, and establish a system of rights"
So, you're thinking of necessary rather than natural rights?
Re:virus: On rights
« Reply #7 on: 2003-10-24 08:05:49 »
Necessary Rights is probably a better term. It is less loaded than Natural Rights. The remaining link to the term "Natural Rights" is that these Necessary Rights are determined by our nature.
Re:virus: On rights
« Reply #8 on: 2003-10-24 10:21:05 »
Quote:
"Necessary Rights is probably a better term. It is less loaded than Natural Rights."
Yes. Association of the term natural rights with Locke is somewhat awkward, since Locke assumes that the subject of said rights is not in a state of nature, but rather that concepts such as property exist and that this creates a requirement for some form of reciprocal contract. This is why much of Locke's theories are analogous to an idea of market exchange (i.e. freedom from any relations other than those one enters with a view to her or his own interest. Society is a series of relations between proprietors. Political society is a contractual device for the protection of proprietors and the orderly regulation of their relations.)
Quote:
"The remaining link to the term "Natural Rights" is that these Necessary Rights are determined by our nature."
Hmm. I think that our nature is less important than what we consider our nature to be. Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke would all view nature differently and therefore come to different conclusions. Of course, they had limited knowledge as to what constituted human behaviour in a state of nature but even now these things are to a large extent a matter of interpretation.
"Rights" are a linguistic invention; a tautological rule set that we humans have invented ("evolved"?) for our own use, in order to implement a "human-friendly" societal network of human beings. (Don't mistake them for anything more or less.) --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
[Kharin] "I don't mean to defend the actual concept of "natural rights" as it is understood by these authors; it's been dismantled by many and I find myself in agreement that ultimately, it is up to whatever sovereign power to recognize the need for, and establish a system of rights"
[Rick] Yes, but can we please refer to said 'rights' as "privileges for all -- privileges which <i>we</i> have decided that all should enjoy; privileges which we intend to secure by force if need be?" When we use the term 'rights' most folks will start thinking of some sort of silliness -- and then things get ugly.
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003
Re:virus: On rights
« Reply #11 on: 2003-10-24 15:44:35 »
[rightsboy] "Rights" are a linguistic invention; a tautological rule set that we humans have invented ("evolved"?) for our own use, in order to implement a "human-friendly" societal network of human beings. (Don't mistake them for anything more or less.)
[rhinoceros] Heh, what's with your nickname then, rightsboy? Is it about the topic you usually talk about?
Back to the topic... "Rights" is a linguistic invention in the same sense that any word is. The question is if it signifies something in communication.
It is less obvious why you say that rights are a "tautological" rule set. Is it because what makes a right is declaring it as one? Although it is true that it is a made up social rule, I don't find it tautological. Rights is a real enough concept.
Of course, what is a right and what is not differs at diferent places and at different times. But how did a right get to be declared as one. Apparently someone claimed that a common practice be granted the status of a right in a particular society. What we usually call "natural rights" were probably the ones which were so embedded in common practice that their official acceptance was secondary. Other, less universal social claims can be held by subgroups or declared as rights by appeal to authority.
Does a right have a function? Sure, you can appeal to a right to your fellow people or go to court and demand action. You can also figure out your limits when you mess with others in a society. If a right is written down in a constitution, it can also be used to set the limits of legislation. And of course, a right can be abolished. All this sounds real enough to me. I don't see how this rule set is tautological.
For an example, let's take private property... your home. It is natural that you'll want to defend it if you have to, no matter if you call it a right or not. The difference that a right makes is that society may take it upon itself to defend it for you (or steal it from you, but this is another discussion), and also to defend others' homes from you. Or you can go to other people and tell them "my rights have been violated" and get support. This is a real enough difference -- it hardly allows for a tautology.
If things were so that everyone had to defend their homes with a shotgun, appealing to a right of property wouldn't make any sense if you didn't mind what your shotgun-carrying neighbors would say, but if you did mind, then your shooting down people had better be covered by a "right".
[rhinoceros] Heh, what's with your nickname then, rightsboy? Is it about the topic you usually talk about?
[rightsboy] Good guess.
[rhinoceros] Back to the topic... "Rights" is a linguistic invention in the same sense that any word is. The question is if it signifies something in communication.
[rightsboy] If not, then it isn't "linguistic" in any functional sense.
[rhinoceros] It is less obvious why you say that rights are a "tautological" rule set. Is it because what makes a right is declaring it as one?
[rightsboy] Precisely -- along with implementation by societal institutions (i.e. democratic government).
[rhinoceros] Although it is true that it is a made up social rule, I don't find it tautological. Rights is a real enough concept.
[rightsboy] By "tautological" I mean a human-defined rule, as opposed to e.g. something "discovered" in "nature". Real enough indeed.
[rhinoceros] Of course, what is a right and what is not differs at diferent places and at different times.
[rightsboy] According to your definition.
[rhinoceros] But how did a right get to be declared as one. Apparently someone claimed that a common practice be granted the status of a right in a particular society.
[rightsboy] I will leave it to the particular society to democratically determine what conditions and "common practices" are necessary for that society's self-maintenance and the "well-being" of its individual members.
[rhinoceros] What we usually call "natural rights" were probably the ones which were so embedded in common practice that their official acceptance was secondary. Other, less universal social claims can be held by subgroups or declared as rights by appeal to authority.
[rightsboy] "natural rights" is a conceptual myth invented in a philosopher's mind. Who you refer to as "we" is a conceptual myth invented in your mind. To minimize ambiguity, we would do well to clearly (linguistically) articulate those rights that we expect each other to be aware of and abide by, and articulate them in a manner that is comprehensible and useful to each and every citizen in their daily interactions with one another (best to teach them in the public school system).
[rhinoceros] Does a right have a function? Sure, you can appeal to a right to your fellow people or go to court and demand action. You can also figure out your limits when you mess with others in a society. If a right is written down in a constitution, it can also be used to set the limits of legislation. And of course, a right can be abolished. All this sounds real enough to me. I don't see how this rule set is tautological.
[rightsboy] According to the definition I am using, a right _only_ "exists" if it is "written down in a constitution", and socially (governmentally) enforced -- thus 'tautological'. Otherwise it is just somebody's conceptual myth, or perhaps an item on their "wish list". "Real enough" indeed.
[rhinoceros] For an example, let's take private property... your home. It is natural that you'll want to defend it if you have to, no matter if you call it a right or not. The difference that a right makes is that society may take it upon itself to defend it for you (or steal it from you, but this is another discussion), and also to defend others' homes from you. Or you can go to other people and tell them "my rights have been violated" and get support. This is a real enough difference -- it hardly allows for a tautology.
[rightsboy] No conflicts here. Again, by "tautology" I mean simply a linguistically defined and conventionally enforced rule. And no less "real" for it.
[rhinoceros] If things were so that everyone had to defend their homes with a shotgun, appealing to a right of property wouldn't make any sense if you didn't mind what your shotgun-carrying neighbors would say, but if you did mind, then your shooting down people had better be covered by a "right".
[rightsboy] If things were so that everyone had to defend their homes (from each other) with a shotgun, then an effective "right to property" would not exist. A right only exists to the extent that persons in a society acknowledge and abide by it on each other's behalf. Rights are not "God-given", nor are they to be found under a rock somewhere out there in "nature". They are a societal network protocol suite which operates to define the nature of the society which adopts them. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Re:virus: On rights
« Reply #13 on: 2003-10-24 19:47:40 »
[rhinoceros 2] A couple of issues not yet resolved about what rights are: (a) the relationship between rights and law, and (b) the question of the tautological or real-world status of rights. You say:
[rightsboy 1] According to the definition I am using, a right _only_ "exists" if it is "written down in a constitution", and socially (governmentally) enforced -- thus 'tautological'. Otherwise it is just somebody's conceptual myth, or perhaps an item on their "wish list". "Real enough" indeed.
[rhinoceros 2] Does it mean that the concept of rights is restricted to law and that the rights are there just because someone wrote them down in the law?
Don't we find the concept of rights in social practices before and outside the reach of law? Is the concept of rights alien to societies that don't operate on written rules? Don't the members of such societies claim "unwritten" social rights for themselves, and don't they get support from their neighbors as a result of this?
[rightsboy 1] By "tautological" I mean a human-defined rule, as opposed to e.g. something "discovered" in "nature". Real enough indeed.
<snip>
[rightsboy 1] No conflicts here. Again, by "tautology" I mean simply a linguistically defined and conventionally enforced rule. And no less "real" for it.
[rhinoceros 2] Not all human conceptual constructs are tautologies. A battle-plan or an architectural design, for example, are not tautologies. How can something which can be disputed in real world terms be called a tautology. I would expect that a tautology is something (linguistic or logical/mathematical) which cannot be disputed within its framework.
For example, there was a time when the slave could say "I have a right to be free" and the master would reply "no, you don't". Both the social and the legal view of that has changed since, in response to real-world social changes, and that was eventually encoding in law.
According to what you said, the people's rights were the ones written down in the laws of that particular country at each point in time. I wouldn't call this "rights". I would call it "rights conceded". But even so, these witten rights can be disputed in real world terms, just like a battle plan or an architectural design. Hardly a tautology.
Author
Logged
