What are our "Human Rights"?

we are citizens of a society,(a member of a organization) like in any other organization there is a contract(agreement) in the case of society that contract should be the constitution.there you should check for the matter.and like in any other contract you should read the fine print.when becoming a member of any group there is always rules in that group and in many cases waivers of rights and so on.that would be a good point to start at to know your situation.as per say natural rights? survival?i really think you are speaking of something else.perhaps this link might help you.www.constitution.org... according to what i read the actual binding contract is the birth certificate,the constitution is the stipulations of the contract,i believe.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Just as in rights, which are not 'given' - they exist without condition.

What rights one has is not a matter of claiming them, or asserting them. They need no adjudication, no qualification, no interpretation.

Rights are a slap in the face to cultures which exist to define communities from one another.... because regardless of their tradition or belief, they are as immutable as they are deep... and their self-evidence cannot be wiped away by doctrine or politics.

No wonder those who "lead" and "plan" want them labeled and packaged for consumption; it is necessary if one is to add one's own 'flavor' to the right... thereby eliminating it entirely.

Because that is the effect of 'explaining' what a right is in terms of what we are willing to expediently negotiate as a right... such efforts actually destroy the nature of the "right" as it stands.

Rights are both monumentally powerful maxims, and the most tenuously fragile of concepts.

Have you a right to be of your own opinion on a matter? Of course.

Can you speak your mind on such a matter and thereby express your "right"?

... Not without qualification.... that right is then utterly gone.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

If we were allowed our God given right to true freedom, things would be better.

Either we are speaking language, or that language is speaking us. "Allowing" freedom is not freedom at all, but is something else altogether. Freedom cannot be granted, and must be taken.

What in the world does that mean? That's almost like going to war and fighting for peace. I think you have been mislead at some point in your life.

Originally posted by bumpufirst
we are citizens of a society,(a member of a organization) like in any other organization there is a contract(agreement) in the case of society that contract should be the constitution.there you should check for the matter.and like in any other contract you should read the fine print.when becoming a member of any group there is always rules in that group and in many cases waivers of rights and so on.that would be a good point to start at to know your situation.as per say natural rights? survival?i really think you are speaking of something else.perhaps this link might help you.www.constitution.org...

The so called "social contract" does not in any way follow the law of contracts, particularly since any breach of contract by "society" is unenforceable. A contract requires a promise, it requires a meeting of the minds, or acceptance of an offer, it requires consideration - what each party will get from the contract - and these are the just the basic elements of an actual contract. Metaphorical contracts are useless contracts, particularly when used in a hopeless attempt to diminish the rights of individuals.

If a right of an individual is being violated, it is not being done by contract. Contracts must be lawful in order to be binding and denying or disparaging people their rights is not lawful. If the rights of an individual are being trampled upon, it is being done by criminality, and not by any noble ideology acting under color of law.

reply to post by smithjustinb


In order for freedom to be "allowed" then there must be somebody, or some group of people "allowing" this. That is not freedom, but instead is some form of benign tyranny. If you genuinely believe your own freedom will only come when others allow it, then it is you who have been misled, and tragically so.

reply to post by Maxmars

Because that is the effect of 'explaining' what a right is in terms of what we are willing to expediently negotiate as a right... such efforts actually destroy the nature of the "right" as it stands.

I have long argued that it is expedience that has become the enemy of our own rights. We imprudently go into agreement on the waiver of rights out of expedience. We think it is practical to simply just go along to get along, until one day we wake up, realize what has happened to our rights, and tragically understand our pursuit of expedience was not very practical at all.

Nice to see you, my friend.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

In order for freedom to be "allowed" then there must be somebody, or some group of people "allowing" this. That is not freedom, but instead is some form of benign tyranny. If you genuinely believe your own freedom will only come when others allow it, then it is you who have been misled, and tragically so.

My freedom occurs at the cost of me breaking laws and having to pay the ones who are restricting it or serve in a jail and really lose it.

You are strongly misinterpreting what I mean by allowing freedom. Instead of keeping your dog on a leash, let him free. That is allowing freedom and is quiiiiiite the opposite of tyranny. Instead of the government having ridiculous laws such as requiring food-service permits to give food to homeless children, maybe they should just allow those people to give food to the homeless people. Do you think permits really stop people from poisoning food or w/e it is those things are for? It's just a racket. You have to pay for those permits. It's all about money and power with them.

reply to post by smithjustinb

My freedom occurs at the cost of me breaking laws and having to pay the ones who are restricting it or serve in a jail and really lose it.

Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. In order for legislation to be valid, it must be lawful.

You are strongly misinterpreting what I mean by allowing freedom. Instead of keeping your dog on a leash, let him free.

Clearly I am not misinterpreting your meaning at all. You have just equated the people with pets, and government as pet owners. As I said, either you speak language, or you allow it to speak you. Language is quite obviously speaking you.

That is allowing freedom and is quiiiiiite the opposite of tyranny.

Only tyrants "allow" freedom. Freedom, by definition, is a state, just as a kingdom, or fiefdom is a state. In a kingdom, people are "allowed" certain liberties, in the state of freedom no one need be "allowed" anything, as they are free to do whatever is lawful.

Instead of the government having ridiculous laws such as requiring food-service permits to give food to homeless children, maybe they should just allow those people to give food to the homeless people.

Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. You cannot grow a crop of corn on a map, nor can you smoke a picture of a pipe. Legislation cannot be the law itself, and just as a picture of pipe can only represent the pipe, or a map can only point to territory, legislation can only describe, or point to law. This does not mean that all legislative acts do so. Of the 600,000 plus acts of legislation currently on the books, it would be absurd to assume that even 1% of them are describing law.

As long as people are willing to equate legislation with law, then people will continue to find themselves leashed by pet owners, and discover they are the pet. Law is not something that is made, it something that is discovered. It is a natural phenomenon just as all law is, and all law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. The capriciousness and arbitrary nature of much legislation is not law.

Do you think permits really stop people from poisoning food or w/e it is those things are for? It's just a racket. You have to pay for those permits. It's all about money and power with them.

Why are you asking me? If you would pay attention, you would all ready know my answer to this question. If your not paying attention, what would be the point in answering now?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


you are correct,i never said it follows contract laws,but when we start asking,what are our human rights,there must be clarification to avoid confusion witch is what the establishment prays on.what rights do slaves have?is it a right or a privilege.what rights do freemen have?who decides for him, if he is free?are we being treated as free,or slaves?there is so much to this subject.

Originally posted by bumpufirst
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

you are correct,i never said it follows contract laws,but when we start asking,what are our human rights,there must be clarification to avoid confusion witch is what the establishment prays on.what rights do slaves have?is it a right or a privilege.what rights do freemen have?who decides for him, if he is free?are we being treated as free,or slaves?there is so much to this subject.

Rights are a natural phenomenon that exist as law, and as such are self evident. All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. This means that there is nothing at all complex about rights, nothing false or contradictory about them, they apply to everyone, and at all times and all places. Slaves have the same rights as anyone else does, and as slaves they are having their rights denied and disparaged.

No one decides for anyone else who is free, unless it is a matter of establishing justice. It is not out of some imaginary contract that we form government. All just governments exist because individuals came together to form an organization to defend their rights. The sad reality is that there are people who willingly trample all over the rights of people. Such an act is unlawful. It violates natural law, and as such no person has the right to violate the rights of others.

When a person denies and disparages an individual's right to life, they have acted criminally, and in such a heinous way that justice demands remedy beyond monetary compensation. Under this condition, the criminal will be imprisoned for their crime, not because we the people deign to arbitrarily deny that criminal freedom, but because that person has demonstrated a disturbing willingness to deny others their freedom.

We will incarcerate, and lawfully so, those willing to deny others their freedom. When government moves beyond this jurisdiction and deigns to incarcerate individuals but cannot demonstrate an actual victim of the alleged "crime", now the state of freedom has been usurped and a new regime is in place.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
and that is exactly what has been happen for a very long time,and i am not talking decades or even centuries but from the existence of society it self.or is it not the case that many have been built and crumbled.why?we must ask.insane is doing the same thing expecting a diferent outcome.
considering your view of the sad reality of life,leaves me to believe then that laws other then natural and governments and society is a means for the very same criminals to set the stage for such abuse.when observing the state of the world is evidence of what i say.

Originally posted by bumpufirst
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

and that is exactly what has been happen for a very long time,and i am not talking decades or even centuries but from the existence of society it self.or is it not the case that many have been built and crumbled.why?we must ask.insane is doing the same thing expecting a diferent outcome.

There is much more to insanity than a pithy quote by Einstein. Sanity requires the ability to discern. As long as people insist that discernment is not necessary when acting, then it is very likely that people will keep repeating their actions expecting different results.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Only tyrants "allow" freedom. Freedom, by definition, is a state, just as a kingdom, or fiefdom is a state. In a kingdom, people are "allowed" certain liberties, in the state of freedom no one need be "allowed" anything, as they are free to do whatever is lawful.

This can of worms is all yours...

What is lawful has become the logical nexus of understanding to comprehend why rights are immutable, and what many people confuse for sacrosanct.

Obviously we have agreed, in the most general of terms, that there is a law. That we, as humans and members of the same society, do not differ on that constant. I expressed the point this way because there are those practicing ideologies that do not recognize an all-embracing category of 'society' as something in which they wish to participate. But that is not necessary to belabor.

Laws, are natural, or self-evident; and laws are also how we refer to the regulation of society. It seems linguistic treachery, no?

We (ostensibly) are responsible for the laws that are not natural. Yet we are conditioned to respond to these constructs of negotiated deliberation with near unquestioning acquiescence. Especially, and in particular, those that govern our daily interactions with others, we would prefer to be as free to act as reasonably acceptable to the rest of our immediate world.

But all of this is off-topic, I fear, because Human rights are not negotiated. Apologies for the digression.

We have a right that comes to us as we recognize it; the right to think and feel, within our selves, without any 'oversight' whatsoever. That much is clear. After all, we have the power to "enforce" that right through the choice of silence.

But wait.... what about polygraphs, new 'mind reading' technology, advanced psychometric evaluations? If there exists a way to eliminate the possibility, does that mean it can't be said to be a 'natural' right any longer? Do rights evolve with us?

I mean there are those who say we have the right to find something to eat and eat it, if we are hungry. Obviously, taken to the extreme, this would be a singularly troublesome practice. Surely the concept of the right has changed with us, as we clustered into larger groups.

Hmmm, excellent topic OP... it's 'rings' for me!

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by Maxmars

 

The UN's statement still only seems to pertain to civil liberties; the freedom of speech, religion, oppression, equality. These are not vital to life. If you are denied food, you die. If you are denied water, you die. In some cases, being denied shelter, medicine and education can be life threatening.

There are 30 articles in the UN's declaration, many of which address the things you mention. But I would like to comment on something you said.

If you are denied food, you die. If you are denied water, you die. In some cases, being denied shelter, medicine and education can be life threatening.

You are of course correct that without food, water, and even to a large degree, shelter; you will likely perish. But being 'denied' access to those things is saying that it means to be 'blocked' from having those things, or more properly, getting them. That's a different thing.

I have heard stories of people who can't fish in their own pond on their property, or having their home seized by government 'eminent domain.' and such. I am assuming that is what you are referring to. Is that right?

I agree with Jefferson but as all humans .........
It's not a simple issue of just the rights of an individual.
In many cases to protect ones rights anothers rights may be hampered or restricted.
So morals , ethics and the law play a part.

"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."

-Thomas Jefferson

The key word is "ALL", which has always been up for interpitation.
Our American forefathers did not include race, religion, skin color, immigrant status or even criminal status.
The word used was "ALL" . "ALL", means "ALL" !
What you see as a right, another may disagree, because of their morals and ethics , or because it infringes on their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I am curious as to what people THINK liberty is .

Originally posted by jerryznv
Of The United States, or a foreign nation, these are the rights that should be guaranteed to everyone.

I can bite my tongue no longer !

While you are perfectly entitled to unthinkingly follow some random dude's definition of ''rights'', the thoughts of a slave-owning, deity invoking, genocidal maniac do not apply, nor are generally acknowledged, anywhere outside your own country.

A ''foreign nation'' - and the way in which we choose to live in our own countries - is not controlled by some pseudo-philosophical comments that were made by unwholesome and unconscionable gentlemen, 230 years ago, in a distant country which has virtually no relevance to our day-to-day lives.

I can't imagine contemplating letting a group of 260-year-old British politicians' quotes seriously instruct me on what to think and believe, especially if their documented immoral behaviour and acts thoroughly contradicted the message they were publicly stating and purportedly championing.


Jefferson's comments also fail on another, logical level:

1. Not everyone believes in a Creator, let alone one which endows people with ''rights''.

2. Those who do believe in a Creator frequently and vehemently differ as to what ''rights'' they believe are ''self-evidently'' afforded to mankind.

3. Points 1 and 2 mean that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, et al. were using their own personal beliefs to spearhead their Declaration of Independence, thus contradicting the notion of ''freedom'' and ''rights'' which were espoused a few years later in the US Constitution.

How can a set of rights not be arbitrary when everybody doesn't even agree with the basic criteria on which these ''rights'' were formulated and derived from ?

reply to post by amaster


It seems today that people view their rights as some sort of shopping list;

1) Food
2) Clean water
3) Shelter.
4) Healthcare
5) Education


These are all things; physical products or services which are produced by the labor of others in most cases (water being the obvious exception).

When we say we have a "right" to one of these, we say that we have the "right" to demand these products or services from others. In effect, we make the people who provide these products and services our slaves because they are obligated to provide them to us. Any time we say that we have the "right" to things, we place the burden of providing those things to us upon the shoulders of another in the form of taxation or outright slavery.


Our human rights consist of more intangible things; the right to work for the THINGS our family needs, the right to think and believe what we wish and perhaps the most important right of all; the right to do what is right.

This means that I have the right to use my natural talents and abilities to seek out work to earn a living for my family. It does not mean that anyone has the obligation to provide me with work; that decision must be made freely by the employer.

I have the right to seek out housing at whatever level I can afford using the fruits of my labors. I have the right to obtain and own property and to use that property to sustain myself if that is what I wish. This does not mean that someone is obligated to give me that property or to not demand a fair price for that property.

I have the right to believe what I want to believe and think what I want to think but, I do not have the right to force my beliefs on others or take away anyone else's right to believe as they wish. I do have the right to use persuasion to attempt to change other peoples minds to attempt to bring them around to my way of thinking and this is the basis of freedom of speech and religion.

I have the right to educate my children as I see fit, either on my own or, if I can afford it, by sending them off to school or university. I do not have the "right" to demand others to pay for mine or my children's education. Where do I get off telling other people to spend their money for my benefit?

The same holds true for healthcare; I have the right to the best healthcare I can afford from the fruits of my labors, nothing more, nothing less.


The most important right I possess is the right to do what is right; I have the right to help out my fellow man when he is in need, to contribute to charities to help the less fortunate and pool the money of people of goodwill. I have the right to stand up for the oppressed and to fight against those who seek to oppress me. I have the right to help others to the extent of my abilities and to contribute as much money to aid them to the extent that I can afford. Nobody has the "right" to demand these things of me or to determine how much I must contribute, that is for me to decide.

If more people would choose to exercise their right to do what is right, the "need" for an all consuming and all providing government would be eliminated. Government would be limited to its proper sphere; providing for the common defense and providing a legal justice system which protects our rights to freedom of action and thought.


There is no freedom to demand things of others, only freedom of action to provide those things for ourselves.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


And I am so glad you did not bite your tongue!

We may disagree regarding the nature of those formulating the notion of a living constitution stewarded by three branches of a democratic government under republican doctrine. It is true, they are not the 'glowing heroes' as they have been marketed by a less sophisticated lot.

They were as human as we are now

But let's face it. It was a damn good idea because even if only on paper, the people were guaranteed freedom from tyranny. It was meant to change. The principles it was founded on are quite simple. Yet it has become lost in a sea of babbling schemers. It is not gone. And it is worth rescuing.

Unless there is a better way upon which all can agree. And that's the point. We can all agree.

Our form of government is about the willingness of the people to take responsibility and stewardship as their own reward. Such is not the case now.

In order for America to endure we must all be as educated and vocal about our 'governance' as we can, from now until the end of time. They have already classified THE POLITICALLY-CRAFTED "Continuity of Governance Plan", so we can't see it. That means we are blind to the ruling political parties' objectives in the case of a 'breakdown' of the social order. I was wondering, .... in light of the Thread OP; is it not our 'collective' human right to participate in the reestablishment of our own rule SHOULD such a thing happen? But you and I (perhaps) don't get to know that. That's a "secret." Where does the guarantee of ethical behavior least likely lie? One might say in the political theater, where expedience rules over prudence.

And none of these things are 'built in' to the framework by the framers mind you, it's the "let's get away from the old rules' mentality that got the political class and those who control it, obscene wealth, power, and even standing in prominence. These were things the founders 'warned us against.' They weren't as irrelevant as you think.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Forgive me for replying out of turn (I know you weren't addressing me) but I wanted to thank you for inspiring me to re-write the list (As I have done in many threads long the way - apologies in advance)

1) Food
2) Clean water
3) Shelter.
4) Healthcare
5) Education

I rewrite this to my suiting. It is not a criticism of the original. But the formatting was too convenient to pass up.

1) Food
Humans always have the freedom to procure sustenance. If they must resort to self-sufficiency and forage and gather, it is their world. They may also with completely no restriction buy, sell, trade, give, donate, or negotiate any reasonably equitable terms for the procurement of food. You may not 'speculate' on food. There is enough food on this planet to feed the world - and it can remain so. As of the 21st Century, famine is an economic construct; we have the means and the opportunity to end famine forever; it is the motive that lacks.

2) Clean water
Any action that involves consumable water must obey three principles:
1 - Water must never be sold 'at profit.'
2 - Services and natural exploitation of water are strictly zero-impact on water's life-sustaining capabilities. You kill the water, you kill the people. Water pollution is a crime which would be felony-class offenses - no 'bargaining'.
3 - No group of people, be they corporate or national in sovereignty, shall impinge upon the community's access or use of the common resource all share and own.

3) Shelter.
(This is a difficult one. By shelter I suppose a house, or a physical construction, is in the mind's eye. But that can't reasonably be a right can it? We would have to redefine the idea of ownership to accomplish it. Unless we are all to live in cubicles or something.) Access to housing is probably where you are going. But we all know that "access" is short for "affordable access" (and once again we return to the economy portion of the show.)

All humans will not be obstructed in the pursuit of space in which to live. All humans are free to engage in whatever reasonable legal activity to secure housing which meets minimally acceptable safety, in which they are sovereign.

4) Healthcare
When such care is available, that service shall not be denied any person.

5) Education
You are free to access any and all public information at any time. Institutions may become accredited to offer training. No person shall be denied access to participate.

I kind of petered out there at the end.... oh well... it's late, and it's been a great read!

reply to post by Maxmars

You are of course correct that without food, water, and even to a large degree, shelter; you will likely perish. But being 'denied' access to those things is saying that it means to be 'blocked' from having those things, or more properly, getting them. That's a different thing.

According to negative liberty yes. But not according to positive liberty, which is a logical extension of negative liberty, one that does not suffer from omission bias.

Negative liberty says we cannot actively block others from their basic rights. Positive liberty adds that we cannot refuse to help others protect their threatened basic rights, if we can easily do so (without threatening our basic rights).
According to consequentialist moral theory, for example actively killing someone, and refusing to save someone while easily being able to do so, is equivalent. Whether the act is passive or active does not matter, only the consequences of our choice.