Where do your rights come from?

a reply to: Salander

Obviously, however the general and fundamental question as to us being born with rights is plainly clear.

Computer say "No".

Man is born with no more rights than dog, just a better brain to body weight capacity, and opposable appendages, that allow us to fashion and use tools.

Nature entertains no such illusions as rights.

a reply to: Salander
Just because you don't agree with the premise of an abstract concept doesn't mean you don't understand it.

The problem you have, not you you, is how do you prove something intangible exists if by definition, it doesn't exist?

It is intangible, a concept, an idea.

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: Nothin

The only rights anyone has are the ones they are determined to fight for.

Thanks for your reply.
Not sure how to qualify that, as compared to my examples ?

If the shrew runs-away from the swooping hawk : Fighting ? And therefore has 'rights' ?
Are the ants fighting the bulldozers : because they have rights ?

Does a human who can't physically 'fight', or defend themselves : have rights ?
A paraplegic person ?
A comatose person ?

A human can supposedly possess water rights : what about the other animals that use that water ?

a reply to: Nothin

Animals probably couldn't care less about philosophical arguments. The personification of non-human animals is akin to a straw man in my opinion.

But I will offer my opinions on your questions.

A shrew running from a hawk. That's an instinctual behaviour. Why does a shrew run? Why does a shrew hide? Does it matter? It lives another day or it dies.

Ants fighting a bulldozer? That's another response. Ants will respond to many things that disturb the anthill. Throw a rock at an anthill and watch the ants surge forth. They are investigating and will initiate defensive measures if need be. Would they win against a bulldozer? That outcome should be obvious.

Non-human animals don't sit in chairs writing or typing away trying to explain their existence. They don't attempt to convince other non-human animals about why their ideology is the best one.

Now, I didn't say anything about physically fighting, because I do know the pen can be just as effective as long as people are willing to honour agreements. Ideally peaceful means are sought out first, but when communications come to an impasse an compromise isn't possible then that often leads to violence. Because for some reason people have a tendency to not allow other people to be left alone. Live and let live is an increasingly rare way of life it seems.

A human that can't fight for their rights will find themselves most likely seeking support from other humans, and that can out them in the unfortunate position of being taken advantage of.

So, a paraplegic or comatose person better hope that they have someone who cares enough about them to be able to help them.

As far as water rights go the same can be applied. If people aren't wiling to fight for access to clean water than what are they doing?

If a corporation buys an entire body of water and sells it back to people at ridiculous prices then those people should band together and take that corporation down.

Very few non-human animals have the aptitude to protect a body of water to provide for a means of safe drinking. There are eels, sharks, crocodylia, etc. Beavers can dam up water ways, but if you want to apply human logic it could easily be said that beavers are very destructive to their surrounding environment. They cut down trees, can flood entire areas, and cause great disruption to other animals.

So, the point is that the only rights we do have are the ones we determine for ourselves and are willing to defend. Otherwise we have no rights.

In regards to non-human animals they have no rights except for the ones that humans grant them. Otherwise they go about their daily struggles eating, reproducing, and dying.

The day I see an ant trying to shake off its queen's pheromones, staring up at the sky and wondering if it really needs to belong to the colony to survive and scratching ant art in the dirt, or see some mule bucking off its yoke to pursue it's dream in theatre or causing some mule uprising against humans will be the day I start believing animals have some universal, god-given rights.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Outstanding effort !

Perhaps all discussions of rights are indeed : philosophical, and rather abstract.
Human constructs, like so much of our societal rules and laws.

We live in a deeply conceptual construct, that most folks call 'real'.

Always love looking to nature, to get to the bottom of these types of discussions.

Ants vs. Caterpillars is stuck in my mind now... LoL !!

Have a great weekend !

a reply to: andy06shake

You're right about that.

Rights are a human construct, rather like the idea of a corporation. Some people are into them, and some people are not.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

Legal rights come from various writs and constitutions of state or country.

Moral rights come from your self, your heart. I have rules that I consider inviolate for myself. They are MY rules, but they also extend to those around me. It's not their fault, but if someone crosses the line, I will verbally warn them. For example, I will not allow anyone to raise their voice to me, other than to convey meaning over a great distance. I grew up under a screamer, and won't tolerate it. At all.

There are some more ethereal rights that I feel that are conveyed by my sense of spirituality. They are not easy to enforce, because I am less able to measure them.

My most important rights are my rules. That # is pretty rigid, but also fair.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Salander

Obviously, however the general and fundamental question as to us being born with rights is plainly clear.

Computer say "No".

Man is born with no more rights than dog, just a better brain to body weight capacity, and opposable appendages, that allow us to fashion and use tools.

Nature entertains no such illusions as rights.

Perhaps a better question would be: what rights should we grant each other?

I am a big fan of thelema. "An it harm none, do what thou wilt"


Negative rights make more economic sense than positive rights.

Example: the right not to be physically assaulted. vs. the right to be given a house if you don't already have one.

It's harder to abuse negative rights (although sometimes still possible if they don't have exceptions.)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

How about do unto others as you would have done to yourself?

These individuals who grant rights, who appointed them thusly? Were they born with more money?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Perhaps we should all be equal, accept that is not the case, and it never will be the case.

Don't mean we should not strive towards some form of equality for all, all the same.

I tend to agree "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the Law", but such ideology needs to be tempered.

Have what you cannot take, take what you do not have, and endeavour never to hurt or harm any one weaker than yourself seems to work well.

As to your query, i say treat people how you find them, which is not so much a right as simply a common curtesy, its nice to be nice after all.

a reply to: Salander

It gets worse Salander, all organised religious practice, most lightly came out from the minds of man ta boot.

Which is plainly clear given the diversity of such and the fact that they are simply not all claiming the same thing.

Humans will claim just about anything to justify the actions, after all, "The man with the bunnet, done it".

a reply to: andy06shake

Yes, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Typical human behavior.

Does being "civilized" require the rule of law?

a reply to: Salander

I would suggest to be civilised requires a modicum of patience and empathy.

In its simplest form, our rule of law means that nobody is above the law, for the rule of law to be effective.

But that's just true is it?

Justice is blind for a reason and possibly not the one that's provided.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Perhaps we should all be equal, accept that is not the case, and it never will be the case.

How would you even evaluate equality?

In my experience, everyone who wants equality only ever measures it in a way that favors them.

If some pimply faced nerd get picked on through high school, never has a pretty girl friend, hell.... never even gets laid until they're in their 30's.

But in college they invent a new type of software, and become a godzillionaire (after which point they finally get laid, but the girl is only using them.)


.... who's really getting the wrong end of things here?

As to your query, i say treat people how you find them, which is not so much a right as simply a common curtesy, its nice to be nice after all.

One theory I like to put forward is that you are never obligated to make the world better off than it would be if you had never been born.

But don't make it worse than it would have been if you had never been born.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Salander

I would suggest to be civilised requires a modicum of patience and empathy.

In its simplest form, our rule of law means that nobody is above the law, for the rule of law to be effective.

But that's just true is it?

Justice is blind for a reason and possibly not the one that's provided.

The trouble is that our rule of law here in the US shows that while our per capita rate of imprisonment has led the world by factors of 6 or 8 for years, there are many examples of those within the government not being punished for their crimes.

It's easy to say that nobody is above the law, but the reality is that many are above the law. Jeffrey Epstein is but one glaring example.

Our rights were slowly gained over centuries through sword, axe and bow.

Our illustrious leaders only give us things when they are FORCED too, if you read the history of almost any country.

If you think it's your god/s then he/she/they has done a very poor job of it for most people living and dead.

Nowadays they are written down in the form of laws which can be changed or ignored at will as demonstrated again throughout history - revolution historically being the only way the people could get them back or effect any change.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Salander

I would suggest to be civilised requires a modicum of patience and empathy.

In its simplest form, our rule of law means that nobody is above the law, for the rule of law to be effective.

But that's just true is it?

Justice is blind for a reason and possibly not the one that's provided.

The trouble is that our rule of law here in the US shows that while our per capita rate of imprisonment has led the world by factors of 6 or 8 for years, there are many examples of those within the government not being punished for their crimes.

It's easy to say that nobody is above the law, but the reality is that many are above the law. Jeffrey Epstein is but one glaring example.

It's not really a fair comparison , though.

America is a very un homogenous mix of people coming in from all kinds of cultural backgrounds. Cultures with different ethical systems that can't agree about what is right and wrong.

ABSOLUTELY ALL of America's wealth owes to its system of commerce.

Take away that system of Commerce, and America would be Mexico.

But a system of commerce requires ethics to match. People who want to trade goods and services must be in a position where they can agree on what will be given, and what will be received.

People in prison are just people who won't agree to the ethical system, but still want the benefits of the system of commerce that comes with it (and in inseparably attached to it).

Sadly, this probably means we will never be in a position where we don't need those prisons.

originally posted by: johnb
Our rights were slowly gained over centuries through sword, axe and bow.

Our illustrious leaders only give us things when they are FORCED too, if you read the history of almost any country.

If you think it's your god/s then he/she/they has done a very poor job of it for most people living and dead.

Nowadays they are written down in the form of laws which can be changed or ignored at will as demonstrated again throughout history - revolution historically being the only way the people could get them back or effect any change.

Nearly all "rights" are just immunities against being attacked.

And proficiency in war has always been the only path to immunity against war.

a reply to: Stevenmonet If you claim to be a man or woman on the land and soil of one of the several states with unalienable rights. The they are granted by our creator. God is a suitable name. Atheist have no rights only privileges.