It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Your Rights, From Birth To Adulthood. An Analysis (Member Participation Wanted)!

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Outside of the normal debates/discussions here on ATS, I would like to open the floor to "out of the box" theories concerning the word rights. Who has them, how you get them, and who enforces them. This thread I am hoping will broaden peoples awareness on personal responsibility, rights proposed by man, and those that were given by birth.

I think its important to put the first definition to the one that applies most to humanity, yet almost never discussed. All of the below interpretations, are connected to this one.
Positive law

Positive law (lat. ius positum) is the term generally used to describe man-made laws which bestow specific privileges upon, or remove them from, an individual or group. This term is in contrast to "natural law", which comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature or reason."[1] Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "[l]aw actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society."[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

Lets begin with the "definition of rights.

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture, and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.

en.wikipedia.org...

The above definition would be considered "rights" by man, due to wording.

Now how many of you have heard of this? This is sort of the same as above with a twist.
Divine command theory

Divine command theory is the meta-ethical view about the semantics or meaning of ethical sentences, which claims that ethical sentences express propositions, some of which are true, about the commands of God. That is, it claims that sentences such as "charity is good" mean the same thing as sentences such as "God commands charity".

This makes divine command theory a subjectivist[1] yet universalist form of cognitivism. Divine command theory thus stands in opposition to other forms of ethical subjectivism (e.g. ideal observer theory, moral relativism, and individualist ethical subjectivism), as well as to moral realism (which claims that moral propositions refer to objective facts, independent of anyone's attitudes or opinions), error theory (which denies that any moral propositions are true in any sense), and non-cognitivism (which denies that moral sentences express propositions capable of being true or false at all).

en.wikipedia.org...

How about this one?
Natural person

In jurisprudence, a natural person is a real human being, as opposed to a legal person, which may be a corporation or state.

In many cases, fundamental human rights are implicitly granted only to natural persons. For example, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states a person cannot be denied the right to vote based on gender, or Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality rights, apply to natural persons only. Another example of the distinction between natural and legal persons is that a natural person can hold public office, but a corporation cannot. A corporation can, however, file a lawsuit or own property as a legal person.

en.wikipedia.org...

And of course.....
Human rights

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law.[2] The doctrine of human rights in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations, has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world. In The idea of human rights[3] it says: "if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights." Despite this, the strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day. Indeed, the question of what is meant by a "right" is itself controversial and the subject of continued philosophical debate.[4]
en.wikipedia.org...

This is the sort of information that can help you to develop how you understand your rights, who gave them to you, and most of all, who gets to apply judgement in case your "man or god" given rights are infringed upon.

If you want to get technical about your rights, here is an example that almost no one I know gets, if you are born from infancy, your actions including, spitting up/soiling diapers/etc,., are your rights. Your parents/guardian, in their care have taken responsibility for your actions. So basically they are your judge for that time.
Also at this time of your birth, your parents have made a contractual obligation via birth certificate/social security, etc,. for your future. (we will get back to this later).

As you begin to develop, you are taught language, and again this IS solely under the discretion of your parent/guardian. What I mean by this is, they can teach you only curse words if they choose, 2 languages, teach correctly or not. This again until a certain age is your parents decision.

Now according to my analysis, you are still free from "positive law".

Continued below.....




posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 


You would be very interested in what this man has to say, he has researched how to become a freeman.
youtu.be...
I highly reccomend watching it, it explains what you already know.
edit on 31-3-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Thanks for the link, I have many threads here explaining the freeman movement. I am going deeper into the concept of "rights" at this point.

Discussing the freeman movement on ATS, as I have learned in the past is not always in welcoming.

Peace, NRE.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Only man 'thinks' he can have liberty because only man 'thinks' he isn't free.
The deeply planted belief in good chains him to whoever.
edit on 31-3-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Does one have to obey the rules invented by government just because they say that you do? Of course not. There is a maxim in law: Do No Harm. No injured third party or damages = No crime. Your rights supersede all forms of legislative rule.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
There is in my opinion a misconception concerning rights, which are given, and which are taken away. We as a collective enjoy thinking that our rights, or so the ones that we adhere to have a common outcome.

"Those that follow the rules, are the exception". This is not so. We are taught that the education system is set in place and is compulsory, that there is a form of learning that only those that required addition , or "higher" education that we as people/parents/community, cannot provide ourselves.

There was an extreme uproar that came with the education system when it was first introduced. There was a fear of the true intent of removing children from their homes. This came under the guise that the purpose was to take underprivileged children, from parents that needed them to help with the farm, or at home with other children, so that the family can be fed.

Eventually places that had centuries of independence, now lost their "right" to properly provide for their families, and most lost their land. The children residing and helping were not dumb, or incapable. They were home taught, and frankly at the time there was no need for higher education. There was no way that people could have worked on those farms, and grown mass amounts of food, without knowledge.

Here are a few quotes that were said about this by Noam Chomsky.

Mass education was designed to turn independent farmers into docile, passive tools of production. That was its primary purpose. And don't think people didn't know it. They knew it and they fought against it. There was a lot of resistance to mass education for exactly that reason. It was also understood by the elites. Emerson once said something about how we're educating them to keep them from our throats. If you don't educate them, what we call "education," they're going to take control -- "they" being what Alexander Hamilton called the "great beast," namely the people. The anti-democratic thrust of opinion in what are called democratic societies is really ferocious. And for good reason. Because the freer the society gets, the more dangerous the great beast becomes and the more you have to be careful to cage it somehow.

en.wikiquote.org...

Here is a small PDF called Schooling and Poor Children in the 19th Century America.
deepblue.lib.umich.edu...

Here is a clipping from one of the popular American textbooks.
en.wikipedia.org...



The ultimate separation of not just rights, but the separation of children and parents.

Continued below......
edit on 31-3-2012 by NoRegretsEver because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Namaste1001
Does one have to obey the rules invented by government just because they say that you do? Of course not. There is a maxim in law: Do No Harm. No injured third party or damages = No crime. Your rights supersede all forms of legislative rule.



Agreed..I give no credence to the rules of man. They are falscifications of the true rules to live by.

Rules as I am supposed to know
Make no difference here nor there
All that is good is made to be low
All that is low is made to be fair

Sorry..I break out in poem sometimes....it is really irritating to most.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 


Humans only have as many "rights" as other humans in their environments allow them to.

Children have no rights unless the authorities see the "legal rights" have been taken away. Otherwise, children are completely subject to the conditions of the environment into which they have been born.

Likewise with elderly people, institutionalized people... anybody. Rights are only "taken away" when the authorities say they've been taken away. Up to that point, the victim doesn't know any difference.

Sure, I was born in the US and legally have many "rights". However, I was born into a life where many of my "basic human rights" were quashed and neglected.

Maybe I have "rights" to many things. Just because others say it is so doesn't mean I will see these "rights" come to fruition.

I'm sure I have a "right" to a Happily Ever After; though I doubt I will ever get it.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join