what is a right?
My current best blogging nemesis has big issues with rights. As far as I can tell, he is your typical indoctrinated American Republican who thinks that ‘rights’ only refer to those enshrined in their almost holy document written over 200 years ago. So I expect one of his prime concerns is that he has a ‘right’ to carry deadly weapons, and the ‘right’ to fire off those deadly weapons at anyone he judges to be threatening.
Here are two rights he thinks people shouldn’t have:
1. The right to open-access, free at the point of delivery health care for everyone, regardless of income.
2. The right as an adult to formalise a loving relationship with another consenting adult through the traditional ritual of marriage.
So, just to help him out, in case he pops by to shout about his interpretation of ‘rights’ yet again, here is the Mirriam Webster dictionary definition of ‘right’:
something that a person is or should be morally or legally allowed to have, get, or do
- From a moral point of view, I don’t think it’s helpful for people to be allowed open access to deadly firearms. I think this is harmful.
- From a moral point of view, I think it is helpful for people to have access to universal healthcare. I don’t think this is harmful.
- From a moral point of view, I think it is helpful for people of any sexual orientation to have the option of marriage. I don’t think this is harmful.
What do you think a right is? Are there any commonly held rights you object to around the world?
I think rights change as society changes. If, indeed, it is possible to feed everyone in the country, I think everyone has a right to not starve to death for the sake of capitalism. Such a right would be a dream 100 years ago, but it is within reach today. The opportunity to get a high level education is less an option today and more of a necessity. In many countries it is free, and in others, you are even paid to go to school, the citizens understanding that it is an investment in the future of the country. In the US, you have to sell your future to have a future. A free education should be a right.
More controversial would be the right to a safe place to live. In Chicago, where a large percentage of housing goes unused, houses could basically be given away and the bank that owns it would make money by virtue of not having to maintain the property, but this is anti-capitalistic. As house or apartment construction becomes automated and costs plummet, this right will become more pronounced. These potential rights all converge in the future, when automation has largely displaced all menial jobs, and all that remains for work is skilled professions and desk jobs that require a masters degree. Society will have to decide between permitting abject poverty or maintaining a minimum standard of living.
LikeLike
Thanks for the comment, these are excellent points. I agree with you that like everything else in existence, rights evolve. I’m excited to see what happens in Switzerland with the referendum for a basic minimum income, with no employment seeking strings attached. It’s a novel concept.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-16/inequality-fight-swiss-will-vote-on-minimum-income
LikeLike
Free speech, self defense, association, due process of law, right to vote,
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment! Am I to understand that you disagree with the dictionary definition, or just that rights should be limited to the items you mention?
LikeLike
You nemesis is being a tad bit inconsistent. Marriage falls under freedom of association.
Universal healthcare is something that has a lot of “moving parts”. Biggest question would be if our society/civilization is at the technology level needed for it to be sustainable and cost-effective.
LikeLike
I don’t know, we all pay our of our pockets for something that’s more logically provided centrally. We agree it benefits all if children are educated, if criminal justice is centralised, if trade and foreign relations policies are centralised. We pay because we benefit. Healthcare isn’t so different. Every other developed country in the world has proven universal healthcare is sustainable and cost-effective. Sure, every time a more right-wing government gets in power they try and undermine it as much as possible, but the system makes so much more sense than private insurance-based systems, where the healthcare provider makes money out of you being ill, needing tests etc., and insurance companies rake in profits off desperate bankruptcy.
LikeLike
Who are you talking about?
LikeLike
Oooh, thanks for your comment. I love an invitation to tell a story. Over on Askthebigot’s blog, the host Bigot will greet all objections with flawless courtesy and love. But should it reach the point where she can no longer justify her position, you will either be deleted or her editor Frau will step in and start making rude, snarky comments. Other ‘random’ people with no blogs will also jump in to support Bigot, because they ‘randomly’ care about the issues. Except that Pink discovered that at least one of the ‘random’ supporters posts from the same IP address as Frau. He’s now admitted he’s her husband. His comment name is Hewhoshallnotbenamed because it’s more sinister sounding than his real name, Joel.
So (the story continues) if you’re really lucky, Joel/Hewho will pop over to your blog and attack you with all his might. When his line of attack inevitably fails, he has two ‘trump’ cards up his sleeve:
1. He’ll accuse you of not realising he’s not a Christian, as if it invalidates the discussion, in spite of the fact he’s been discussing the Bible.
2. He’ll start waffling about how you don’t understand what a ‘right’ is, as if that invalidates the discussion, in spite of the fact that he can’t tell you what he thinks a right is, and won’t accept either the UN or general dictionary definitions of what rights are.
LikeLike
“Hewhoshallnotbenamed because it’s more sinister sounding than his real name, Joel.”
MFNSBL 🙂
Sounds like a nice lad. Imagine his embarrassment when he was caught out!
LikeLike
MFNSBL – My funny nose stopped bleeding lately? He wasn’t embarrassed when he was caught out. He pretended he’d never pretended to be an impartial bystander and called Pink lots of rude names, like … ‘coward’.
LikeLike
Ooh, coward? Dastardly! You really should tell me when these circus’s get going.
You can’t possibly expect me to actually remember what MFNSBL means hours after inventing it.
LikeLike
BBL (keep ’em simple)
LikeLike
Boozer Broken Loxotic?
LikeLike
Oooh, almost. Big belly laugh.
LikeLike
Just a hair off! I’ll land it next time, i’m sure.
LikeLike
Just call him Voldemort. Or if you’re really feeling snarky, Tom.
LikeLike
Funny you should say that. Clare did call him Voldemort and he got all shirty about her implying she hated him. She had to point out the obvious, so he clearly didn’t think his name through.
LikeLike
Violet, there are two schools of thought. One is that our rights come from our Creator and the other is that our rights are bestowed upon us by government. The conservative idea is that if you are owned by God, you cannot be owned by man. The reverse is also true, if you are not perceived to be owned by God, then you will be perceived to be owned by man. Or sold to the highest bidder. Your alien lizard over lord will become the State, the government. That is the authority that will now step in and dictate your behavior to you. They will monitor, regulate, and control you.
Ironically, that authoritarian, arbitrary and dictatorial spirit that you often attempt to apply to religion, is the exact same thing conservatives fear, they just fear having it forced upon them by government.
It’s not an issue of what is a right, but a debate over who is going to hold the power over us and who will we be forced to answer to. For many of us Christians, we would prefer to answer to God. IMO, even non believers should logically agree, because the list of atrocities committed by governments and bureaucracies is vast.
Regardless when it comes to our rights, you will serve one or the other.
LikeLike
Thanks for the comment, I’ve never heard that perspective before, but it helps me understand a bit more about that kind of American mindset. Like Ruth, I don’t view The Government as some 1984 scary Big Brother operation, but a group of people who are elected and accountable to make decisions for us. Their decisions are based generally on research and evidence, and held up to scrutiny by the press and public. I don’t agree with all their decisions but, like everyone around me, I have the opportunity to both join the political process and to influence the political process through campaigning and voting. We’re not powerless unless we want to be. I am my alien lizard overlord. 😉 Thank the god God I don’t have to resort to giving my rights over to the silent and invisible god God and a rambling book written by ignorant men from 2000 years ago and more.
LikeLike
Am I wrong or aren’t “We the People” the government? We have checks and balances in place. It is “We the People” who determine what our rights as U.S. citizens are. Not a god and not the government.
LikeLike
VW, a few things. First, corrections. Since they are my thoughts I’m pretty sure I know what they are.
I do not oppose, as you put it “The right as an adult to formalise a loving relationship with another consenting adult through the traditional ritual of marriage.”
I believe I have said as much on your blog. If you are going to represent my thoughts, please do so accurately.
“He’ll accuse you of not realising he’s not a Christian, as if it invalidates the discussion, in spite of the fact he’s been discussing the Bible.”
Well. That is ridiculously funny and disingenuous of you. First, you are the bible obsessed individual and I have only discussed the bible in response to your ill-framed arguments that you base in the bible. To be clear, you brought up the bible, not me. Secondly, you and your friendly associates continue to call me a Christian. I am simply pointing out that I am not.
“He’ll start waffling about how you don’t understand what a ‘right’ is, as if that invalidates the discussion, in spite of the fact that he can’t tell you what he thinks a right is, and won’t accept either the UN or general dictionary definitions of what rights are.”
While I do make a mean waffle, waffling is your gig. It is you who does not understand what a right is. Your UN document and Webster’s children’s dictionary definitions aside, it is clear by what you describe as a right that you do not understand them, nor the difference between rights and privileges, desires and necessities.
Short corrections:
I have never pretended to be anything.
Pink IS a coward. And mentally unstable.
Voldemort? No. I just don’t live in a Harry Potter world, it was not foremost on my mind, had not had my coffee yet, dog ate my sense of humor that day.
So what do I think a right is? Thanks for asking! I’ll try to keep it brief…and simple. There is one fundamental right. The right to life. The right to life is defined as the sovereignty to pursue life by your own terms using your own judgment to direct your actions without need of sanction from any other individual or group.
As life has one alternative, the primary value of every living entity is its life, and the primary purpose and actions of a living entity is to sustain and improve that life.
As lives are singular and unique to the individual, the sovereignty is therefore that of the individual as a result of the nature of its very existence. It is not granted by gods, God, other individuals, groups, or the laws written by them
All other rights are subordinate to the right to life. These rights, collectively, are a construct by which we as individuals integrate into society ourselves and our pursuit of our primary value. That primary value being life itself. For example, we have the right to speak freely. Without others to speak to, and without the ability of others to prevent us from speaking, there would be no concept of such a right. Such rights only exist as a result of interacting with others. Specifically, as a result of the ability of others to prevent the free exercise of thereof.
Examples of subordinate rights: You have the right to selective association, i.e. trade as you choose, form alliances and discriminate as you choose. You have the right to property, capital or physical, as it is nothing more than your stored life energy, and therefore yours. You have the right to self-defense. In context, this should be self-explanatory.
As to things that are not rights. You do not have a right to the effort of others. Taking effort of others violates the primary right of those from whom you take. You do not have the right to impose involuntary servitude on others. You do not have the right to enslave.
Therefore, you do not have a right to healthcare, education, food, clothing or anything else you cannot produce yourself or gain from others via free trade or gain without payment with mutual agreement.
All that said, of course I want those who need care to receive care, those that need food to have food and those that need education to receive it. If I could paint the world perfect I would, but that is not the nature of existence. I believe you should have these things, but you do not have a right to take them from others.
The human race has spent thousands of years crawling out of the quagmire of an existence to which your world view would have us return. Your ideology is not progressive, it is regressive. It may be painted with a new face, one that on the surface appears enlightened and intelligent, but it is no different in its level of development than the thinking of the first human who realized he or she could club another with their bone tool and take what was not theirs. The primitive level of sating desire via force. You desire others to have health care, others have the means, you take the means, problem solved.
Now I’m sure you will find some reason you will desperately cling to that will allow you to avoid the facts above, But who knows? You might surprise me.
Lastly, I can’t help but think how sad it is, for you. You call me a nemesis when, if you actually understood the subject matter, you would realize that although we may not be friends, I am your ally.
LikeLike
“Now I’m sure you will find some reason you will desperately cling to that will allow you to avoid the facts above, But who knows? You might surprise me.”
Oh, I hope I won’t ever surprise you. What facts are you referring to? It was just an explanation about your personal opinion on rights, which makes no sense to me. Why would you believe your version of rights trump that of the dictionary or the UN? Honestly, it’s baffling.
You appear to be arguing that we have the right to discriminate against others – are you happy with racism and sexism going unchallenged?
Would you take away every child’s right to education if you had a chance?
LikeLike
Quotes from Hewhoshallnotbenamed:
“I have a position that you do not share. That position is that Homosexuality is an error. All species driving primary imperative is to reproduce and no one has produced any evidence to support Homosexuality being aligned with that goal. This is not a hateful position, it’s just a rational conclusion.”
“Am I friends with ATB? Who can say? Maybe I am, or maybe I’m just someone who stumbled across a bunch of bullies arrogantly picking on someone and I just don’t like that kind of thing.”
“It’s silly to say that a deviant of a defined concept such as marriage is acceptable because THE DEVIANT VARIATION is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. The biblical ground Christians have to stand on regarding marriage is firm.”
“All things have an ideal state or condition and we all should strive for that ideal. The ideal parental structure is a man and a woman, not because of their sexual preferences for the opposite sex, but for the balance of masculine and feminine influence on children. The science for this is overwhelming and there is no legitimate argument to the contrary (including sited new studies LACKING peer review). Can a same sex couple be good parents? I’m sure there are examples of fantastic same sex parents, however, a family with same sex parents is not the ideal. As a society and as individuals we should promote the ideal in all things, anything else is illogical and irrational.”
“Yes I am saying homosexuality is an error. It is not an outcome of evolution as some might like to think.”
“My point regarding your tradition only claim for marriage, defined as mixed sex, has been that it completely ignores the origin that can be found in the male female requirement for procreation.”
“To force the false right to a child for those who can not naturally produce one (heterosexual or homosexual) will create a modern day slave trade.”
LikeLike
VW, I guess you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the subject matter, as you said, it makes no sense to you. What I wrote is not an opinion, it is logic applied to the observable facts. It is the definition of rights. Maybe you should read it a few more times.
Children do not have a right to education, so no right to take away. Would I advocate removing education from children. Are you really asking such a silly question?
I am not happy with any discrimination, however to discriminate is a right.
Thank you for posting a collection of my previous comments, and thank you for editing some as to not provide them in context. If you read them and all else I have said you will see there are no inconsistencies.
“Is homosexuality normal? No. Is it naturally occurring? Yes. There is a difference. Albinism occurs without outside influence (naturally occurring) however it is an error and therefore not normal. Yes I am saying homosexuality is an error. It is not an outcome of evolution as some might like to think. Although the deep hate many of you have does fit nicely with this evolved superior master race delusion (Clare Flourish). Wait, that’s not what she is saying?? Yes it is. This delusional thinking is a result of not accepting homosexuality for what it is and being ok with it as a homosexual. As with any other malady one can live a full life accepting the fact they were born with a malady.”
That was a response to the Ideas put fourth by your friends that Homosexuality was a result of evolution and and an example of a more advanced human state of existence.
LikeLike
“I guess you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the subject matter” That’s probably the case, as genuinely I don’t know what you think your point is about rights. I can only conclude that you and your friends have climbed on to the next rung of the evolutionary ladder. 😉 I can’t wait to live in your new utopia where we don’t have rights to anything because nothing we currently have a right to is an actual right.
LikeLike
There are natural rights, and rights under the law. Hopefully the two match up. A lawyer can usually tell you what rights you have under the law. A philosopher is a good pick to help think about what rights you have under the natural law.
If someone says they do not think there is any real morality (e.g., natural rights) then there is no real answer to what rights we “should” have under the law. We will just keep having whatever rights people choose and there will be no underlying reality to use to decide whether our laws are progressing or regressing.
As to the right to bear arms I am torn on that. I do think with some of these cases where over a dozen people are killed many lives could be saved if more people were armed. So I think I agree with your nemesis. Also having been the victim of a burglary I plan on keeping a gun for protection after my kids leave the house.
As to healthcare I tend to agree. We should all pool money together to help pay for at least basic required healthcare.
As to marriage – I think the state should not be involved at all. That should be between the two people and they can give their relationship whatever value they decide.
LikeLike
Thanks for your input on this. I guess my nemesis has his own interpretation of natural rights, although he hasn’t clearly explained what these are, or given any information about other individuals or organisations who share his beliefs. So I’ve concluded it’s a personal fantasy definition of rights.
” I do think with some of these cases where over a dozen people are killed many lives could be saved if more people were armed.” I must confess this sentence surprised me, the last four words were not where my mind was going. Not living in an armed society, it confuses me that people living in armed societies with high death rates think they could save more lives with more firearms …
LikeLike
VW, start with Frederic Bastiat. Fallacies of Protection would be a good start.
LikeLike
I agree with you True, accept for your feeling on pooling money. Your ideas and feeling do not equate to a right to the means of others.
LikeLike
Pingback: violetwisp