rights revisited

[Fooloso4]

Burning ghost:

So when you were born you were instantly ripped away from our family and put some other random family thus altering your genetic make-up?

Your genetic make-up is not altered, and that is why the circumstances of family is not innate. You usually seem much sharper than this.

Generally speaking it does follow that those on high do have a greater capacity for morality and intellect.

It is better to speak in terms of concrete realities. Which aristocracies do you wish to defend as morally and intellectually superior?

If you don’t think so the you assume humanity is doomed to fail.

In that case all democracies and republics are doomed to fail, which of course they will whether or not there is an aristocracy. The United States is a democratic republic and has had a pretty good run so far. In principle it is a classless society. Although there are economic classes, this is not the same thing as an aristocracy. At least in theory there is upward mobility. Someone like Trump is not a member of the upper economic class because he is morally and intellectually superior. He was not given millions of dollars and other advantages by his father because of his moral and intellectual superiority.

… note what I’ve said previously about prenatal development and how stress factors into the next few generations affecting neruological development.

Yes, and this is why some argue that those who are less advantaged should receive better medical care and education while others are more intent on widening the gap by denying those in need.

Are murderers and rapists entitled to equal rights?

Were they entitled to equal rights prior to murdering or raping? Isn't it the case that these rights taken away? When are rights established and on what basis?

So the claim above is faulty (in bold.) [giving someone more or less human rights has no ethical basis].

Human rights are not given, but they can justifiably be restricted. Who gave you the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
At what age were they given to you, upon the demonstration of what capacities, and in what measure? If rights are given does that mean they can be taken away without justification by whoever granted them?

Rights are the same. They must be offered in small parcels …

Which of the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do you think should be parceled out? Before deciding you should read the whole thing in order to see how some articles condition others.

[Steve3007]

The argument taht Dachshund's position leads to genocide CAN be so construed, but it really depends on how society leans toward the compassion, understanding, empathy, selflessness, and the like.

I wasn't arguing that his position leads society to genocide. I was just re-stating the fact, based on his words, that it has led him to propose either genocide or ethnic cleansing of the indigenous populations of Australia and New Zealand. I'm not really making an argument in any of this. Just elucidating what somebody else has said.

[Fooloso4]

H&N:

This is why Burke's argument against Paine and the charge of the "leveling" of social advantages …

I looked at the Thomas Paine National Historical Association to learn more. From what I read his views seem to be in line with those of social democrats like Bernie Sanders.

He argues in favor of publicly funded welfare for all citizens, especially at the beginning and at end of life, and he outlines a concrete plan for its implementation. As he sees it, taxation and redistribution of wealth, within certain bounds, are just as essential for liberty as are the franchise, education, free trade, a constitution, and a bill of rights. For every person to have the chance at sustaining their life in a way compatible with their rights, the young should, at the very least, receive a free and full education and a sum of money with which to start out on their chosen profession, and a stipend to sustain them in health, comfort, and dignity when they can no longer work.

Since every person is born into society denied of their birthright, which is the right of equal access to all land on earth and its resources, everyone is responsible for paying damages for that loss. What we now call welfare is really reparations, due to everyone, by all members of a society that enforces landed property rights.

Remember that Paine offers the facts of history to show that fair wealth distribution just never seems to happen in societies that privatize land rights

Returning to the original point regarding the fairness of redistributing income from the wealthy to the un- or under-employed: Paine foresees this objection by calling for a universal basic income. In other words, he thinks that it should not be granted on the basis of need. That’s because, for one thing, he bases his whole argument on the equality of natural rights. All human beings alike are deprived of their natural right of free and full access to all of the land and its resource in societies that enforce landed property rights. Even those who own land are still deprived of the right of access to other land, so they are still owed the same damages.

(http://thomaspaine.org/paine-on-basic-i ... ights.html)

Some points:

A free and full education:

In the United States students are given a free and full education through high school.

A stipend to sustain them in health, comfort, and dignity when they can no longer work:

Social security and disability insure serve this function even if not always adequately.

Damages for loss of equal access to all land:

Public lands is in line with this. Real estate taxes are as well, although there is a federal tax deductions for home ownership.

Fair wealth distribution:

This is not a popular idea as long as the majority is able to earn a living wage, pay medical expenses, pay for college, and have some free time. But there is a growing income disparity. It may reach the tipping point. Minimum wage requirements are in line with fairer distribution. Requiring the wealthy to pay more in taxes is as well, although current policies have moved in the other direction, increasing income disparity. In addition,once again a significant segment of the population has bought into the idea of trickle down economics. By the time the evidence accumulates showing that it does not work the blame may already have been put somewhere else. The term 'fair' cuts both ways - it is not fair to redistribute income by taking it from some and giving it to others, and it is not fair that fewer and fewer have more and more, controlling what others have access to.

[Burning ghost]

Fool -

Human rights are not given? Do you have a nationality? A passport? An ID? Where these not given freely to you?

Of course some things are given to us (“innate” about family was me trying to show the fuzziness between ideas of nature and nurture - you were not taken away from your family at birth.) Other things are earnt in life by reasonable living.

Regardless of individual cases that suit your views your children are better off with a higher IQ than being born into a rich family.

I find the thigns stated by the UN silly. And when people start saying children born in Africa are entitled to live in the west they quote the UN. You are actually an aristocrat if you take a look at the global scale. Do you not wish to defend your position as morally and intellectually superior and if not why not? If so how is it you’ve come to have such moral and intellectual superiority?

I’ll wait fro Sausage Dog to reply. I think I might get some sense out of him even if I don’t like what he says half the time.

[Burning ghost]

Here’s some “rights” for you. Just to show idiocy has engulfed the world:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ciZWF-3ZH3Y

[ThomasHobbes]

Here’s some “rights” for you. Just to show idiocy has engulfed the world:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ciZWF-3ZH3Y

What is your point?

Human capabilities are not well measured in stuffy exam halls.
Dyslexics can have much greater capability and intelligence than many who get better scores in exams.
Why would you want to crush the potential of a person because they are dyslexic?

[Fooloso4]

Burning ghost:

Human rights are not given? Do you have a nationality? A passport? An ID? Where these not given freely to you?

I don’t know if you are being deliberately argumentative or having trouble following*. A fundamental premise of human rights, and here Burke and the neocons agree, is that natural rights are not granted by the government. They are by God or nature. Hence the term natural rights.

I find the thigns stated by the UN silly.

This is not a substantive response.

And when people start saying children born in Africa are entitled to live in the west they quote the UN.

Where does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights say that?

You are actually an aristocrat if you take a look at the global scale.

And what follows from this? I am also extremely handsome, charming, and witty.

Do you not wish to defend your position as morally and intellectually superior and if not why not?

Morally and intellectually superior to whom? I do not think that morality and intellect are conjoined.

Here’s some “rights” for you. Just to show idiocy has engulfed the world:

Sorry, I am not going to watch an hour long video.

* I am serious about this. I have notices many more mistakes in reading and spelling than is typical of you.

[Burning ghost]

Okay, behave like an infant. You’ll get nothing more from me.

Reading mistakes? If you wrote that senence in an essay under exam you’d have been penalised.

[Hereandnow]

Steve3007
I wasn't arguing that his position leads society to genocide. I was just re-stating the fact, based on his words, that it has led him to propose either genocide or ethnic cleansing of the indigenous populations of Australia and New Zealand. I'm not really making an argument in any of this. Just elucidating what somebody else has said.

On the other hand, if you think about it: if there is no ethical restraint on how rights, privileges, wealth, etc. are distributed at all, if it all just goes to who is best fit and able, then you have this Spenserian spectre raising its voice. Eugenics, some Malthusian catastrophe (thinking its ok to let the poor to starve and fall away since their rights, if they have any at all, are subordinate to the greater good), gets its justification from a lack of recognition of basic human rights, at least in theory. I mean, if we really accept the idea that rights are genuinely grounded in what is given by nature and society, then where does protection come from at all for the least advantaged? Only from self interest of the strongest. Then Marx steps in: these guys will give the poor just what they need to subsist, and beyond this?

[Burning ghost]

H&N -

From the self interest of the strongest. To help yourself you necessarily have to learn to help others. Empathy is the natural disposition of humans. We understand to some degree the plight of those suffering.

The basic human condition is not a basic human right. What is is. Human rights legislation is a attempt to set a global goal, it’s patronizing, superficial and makes people feel like they are entitled to certain treatment regardless of their behavior.

Utopian ideals are just that. Too often the path to some ideal leads down darker avenues then expected. Caution is not a terrible remedy.

[Steve3007]

Human rights legislation is a attempt to set a global goal

All legislation is an attempt to set a goal. A person who doesn't understand that would appear not to understand the difference between a prescriptive legislative law and a descriptive law of physics. The UNUDHR is not Newton's laws of motion. A piece of legislation that outlaws murder (for example) is not stating that it is physically impossible to murder someone. It is setting out the obligation of society, via such things as the judiciary and the police, to attempt to prevent murder.

With every right comes the obligation to attempt to uphold that right. The fact that there are some people who don't appreciate that fact doesn't mean that no rights should be declared.

[Steve3007]

I mean, if we really accept the idea that rights are genuinely grounded in what is given by nature and society, then where does protection come from at all for the least advantaged? Only from self interest of the strongest. Then Marx steps in: these guys will give the poor just what they need to subsist, and beyond this?

As I said to Burning ghost, it seems clear to me that rights, such as those set out in the UDHR, are prescriptions, not descriptions. Or, as ThomasHobbes said in an earlier post, they are aspirations. Same general idea. It seems highly unlikely to me that the writers of the UDHR mistook these rights for descriptive laws of physics.

So protection comes from the extent to which the strong agree to be obliged to defend those rights.

[Burning ghost]

The issue is member states using the legislation to bully and attack other states, for it’s citizens to pursue the “right” to a better life overseas, and to play the victim,when it suits them.

At least the EU sets certain goals before attaining membership. The UN is a much bolder attempt, but I wonder whether or not it does more harm than good adn whether or not such large ideas are viable. Or is this just a necessarily messy period for the organisation to go through prior to establishing a better grounding and global influence?

It seems a stretch too far for me. It’s just my opinion. I am all for the idea of a global government and global law, but I don’t think we’re anywhere near a state where such a thing can be implimented. Maybe the UN is a necessary experiment and does some use i helping map out some future organisation by revealing unseen problems.

[Steve3007]

The issue is member states using the legislation to bully and attack other states, for it’s citizens to pursue the “right” to a better life overseas, and to play the victim,when it suits them.

If I was the president of country A and the president of country B said to me: "Human rights legislation means that the citizens of country B have the automatic right to come and live in country A" I would disagree with that interpretation of human rights legislation. I would say (as Fooloso4 said to you) "point me to the article which states that."

At the end of the day, legislation being a prescription not a description, it requires agreement between the parties to it in order for it to happen. It's an aspiration. So, as I said to HAN, protection comes from the extent to which the strong agree to be obliged to defend the declared rights of the weak. There is no law of nature which states that they will.

[Eduk]

I don't like it when people say one thing which means something else while taking it that those in know do know what they mean. I think the popular term is dog whistle.
I mean people write that they disagree with such and such a point on human rights but they seem to actually mean that they plain don't like non white people, or immigration is bad mkay. Or some over thing which they hold very dear but they don't want examined.
What I actually hear is I am in pain please help me. I guess that's just the way I hear dog whistles.