It seems that there is two definitions of the term rights. One seems to be the correct term, the other seems to be the combination of privilege with the definition of right. So, please…let’s discuss the term “right.” What does it mean?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
It seems that there is two definitions of the term rights. One seems to be the correct term, the other seems to be the combination of privilege with the definition of right. So, please…let’s discuss the term “right.” What does it mean?[/quote]
Rights are what the government gives you.
Okay? What’d I win?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
It seems that there is two definitions of the term rights. One seems to be the correct term, the other seems to be the combination of privilege with the definition of right. So, please…let’s discuss the term “right.” What does it mean?[/quote]
Rights are what the government gives you.
Okay? What’d I win?[/quote]
I have a pudding cup (top still on, so you’re good), ambrosia (didn’t eat out of the container so you’re good there,too), a bottle of coke zero (water fall so no back wash), and a bucket of ice chips. Besides that I got like five bottles of pain killers.
Stuff I want I should get.
Right? I mean, right?
What rights mean ties in largely to how a person defines freedom. Generally speaking, freedom is defined in 2 opposed ways.
-
Freedom means freedom of action. Essentially self determination, freedom to do what you want.
-
Freedom from worry. Defined this way, having to provide for one’s self and being beholden to the consequences of one?s own action means being a slave. You are a slave to having to defend/provide/survive in the world.
Pretty much everyone agrees that we have a right to freedom, BUT what that entails can mean opposite things to different people.
If that means free from worry, it makes it everyone’s job to provide for your future, AND your right to demand sustenance from other people. (this is socialism/Marxism/fascism just using different methods)
If that means freedom of action, the result is the opposite. (this can be classical liberalism or anarchy depending on where you go with it)
But what it really comes down to is what it means to be free.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But what it really comes down to is what it means to be free.[/quote]
Good rundown, and I think it is important to note that the Left (generally speaking) does not recognize these distinct categories - rather, they see them as interdependent: improving one’s freedom from worry enhances one’s freedom to do whatever he/she wants.
In other words, the less time you are occupied working to allevate “worries”, the more time you have to devote exercising your other freedoms, so personal freedoms are enhanced by expansionary government and wealth transfers, benefits, etc.
And, only after people are truly liberated from these “worries” can they truly be “free”.
Lefties never quite articulate it that way, and I am sure they haven’t anointed me their spokesperson, but I think the recognition of this view is crucial.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
It seems that there is two definitions of the term rights. One seems to be the correct term, the other seems to be the combination of privilege with the definition of right. So, please…let’s discuss the term “right.” What does it mean?[/quote]
Rights are what the government gives you.
Okay? What’d I win?[/quote]
I have a pudding cup (top still on, so you’re good), ambrosia (didn’t eat out of the container so you’re good there,too), a bottle of coke zero (water fall so no back wash), and a bucket of ice chips. Besides that I got like five bottles of pain killers. [/quote]
No Obama money? You are discriminating against me!!!
Rights are codependent on freedom.
Where freedom does not exist rights cannot exist.
Rights cannot be given; however, they can be taken by aggressive force.
These terms, “rights” and “freedom”, are the central theme to all political debate throughout history.
Politics is the process of defining these terms and getting people to go along with said definitions.
edit: one of the reasons I believe freedom and politics are antithetical to each other is that freedom is the essence of voluntary human action and politics is a method of controlling human action - the precise opposite of that.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
It seems that there is two definitions of the term rights. One seems to be the correct term, the other seems to be the combination of privilege with the definition of right. So, please…let’s discuss the term “right.” What does it mean?[/quote]
Rights are what the government gives you.
Okay? What’d I win?[/quote]
I have a pudding cup (top still on, so you’re good), ambrosia (didn’t eat out of the container so you’re good there,too), a bottle of coke zero (water fall so no back wash), and a bucket of ice chips. Besides that I got like five bottles of pain killers. [/quote]
No Obama money? You are discriminating against me!!!
[/quote]
I can get you a value meal, that is about it. I’m a missionary/minister, now. So, I only got a wad of cash in my pocket that God has given me.
Whatever the guy with the gun says they are. Unless you’re making a faith-based claim.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Where freedom does not exist rights cannot exist.
[/quote]
What do you mean by this?
Do you mean that rights only exist when freedom exists or rights are only exercised when freedom exists?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Where freedom does not exist rights cannot exist.
[/quote]
What do you mean by this?
Do you mean that rights only exist when freedom exists or rights are only exercised when freedom exists?[/quote]
He means that so long as freedom is absent, there isn’t even a right to freedom. So, there are no rights being trespassed upon in the absence of freedom.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Whatever the guy with the gun says they are. Unless you’re making a faith-based claim.[/quote]
The guy with the gun with tell you what your faith is too.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Whatever the guy with the gun says they are. Unless you’re making a faith-based claim.[/quote]
The guy with the gun with tell you what your faith is too.[/quote]
Not for the guys with actual faith. Those guys die in defiance.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Where freedom does not exist rights cannot exist.
[/quote]
What do you mean by this?
Do you mean that rights only exist when freedom exists or rights are only exercised when freedom exists?[/quote]
Rights and freedom are synonymous concepts.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Where freedom does not exist rights cannot exist.
[/quote]
What do you mean by this?
Do you mean that rights only exist when freedom exists or rights are only exercised when freedom exists?[/quote]
Rights and freedom are synonymous concepts.[/quote]
So, negative on the inalienable rights?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Where freedom does not exist rights cannot exist.
[/quote]
What do you mean by this?
Do you mean that rights only exist when freedom exists or rights are only exercised when freedom exists?[/quote]
Rights and freedom are synonymous concepts.[/quote]
So, negative on the inalienable rights?[/quote]
I don’t think so.
A right is essentially a declaration of ones freedom.
By calling our actions rights we are implying they cannot be taken from us.
By what “right” can rights be taken from an individual? Can an individual (of groups of individuals) claim the right to take other’s rights?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
By what “right” can rights be taken from an individual? Can an individual (of groups of individuals) claim the right to take other’s rights? [/quote]
Wait, wasn’t it you who said say that with the absence of freedom is an absence of rights? If the oppressors have the power to be free, then they have whatever rights they choose. While the oppressed has none (since there are no rights with the absence of freedom).
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
By what “right” can rights be taken from an individual? [/quote]
By the ‘right’ of nature. Often translating to right of might. Or right of fitness. Happens all the time.
Basically, what do you mean by asking what ‘right’ some animal has to take ‘rights’ away from another? It’s isn’t a question about rights. It’s a question about, can that animal(s) accomplish it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
By what “right” can rights be taken from an individual? Can an individual (of groups of individuals) claim the right to take other’s rights? [/quote]
Wait, wasn’t it you who said say that with the absence of freedom is an absence of rights? If the oppressors have the power to be free, then they have whatever rights they choose. While the oppressed has none (since there are no rights with the absence of freedom).[/quote]
How does one claim rights they would deny to others?