The deadly superstition of human rights video review

[cobra2411]

Ok, I have to admit I had to stop watching as I simply couldn't get though it as I feel Stef has missed the point. 

 

On my way to becoming an anarchist I was a constitutionalist and that is where my understanding of rights comes from. Now, I want to stop the idea right in it's tracks that I think the constitution is a source of rights, it isn't. The constitution is an attempted to get government to recognize and respect the rights that are inherent to man. 

 

Since Stef's argument is that the state created rights to "sell" us something lets look at what the state defines a "right" as. Blacks law 4th edition defines a right as "a power, privilege, faculty, or demand inherent in one person and incident upon another ... powers of free action." Now inherent is defined as "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute." So the state defines a right as a power or privilege that's a permanent and essential attribute of a person. Nowhere does it say it's a gift of the state. 

 

Now, onto the notion of "I have a right to education" or "I have a right to contraception." Yes you do. No one can stand in your way and block access to education or contraception or whatever. What you do not have a right to is force someone else to pay for that education or contraception. This is the distortion that has crept into the thinking of late. IMO the constitution was the best attempt at a government structure that would respect the rights of the people and there was a lot of great thinking about rights that came out of that time. At the center of it all you have a right to property. Your right to life is an extension of that because your body is your property. It's commonly accepted under the constitution and common law that your rights extend until they interfere with another's rights. So you have a right to education because no one has a superior right to stop you from learning. However, you do not have a superior right to take someone else's time or effort. 

 

I think in the end we're saying the same thing but I feel that Stef has gotten caught up in the distorted thinking that's out there trying to use state power to grant rights. People have rights, they created the state to serve them and granted the state privileges. Since the state has no rights it can not convey any rights. Rights are not things, they are attributes and are permanent and essential. That's why the founding father's stated they were unalienable. You can not take them and you can not give them away, they are always there. You can only respect them or not. 

[Culain]

The problem with rights is that people only bring them up when they feel like they're being threatened or if they want to impose threats on another.

 

There are two kinds of rights that I see, "The right to self", and "The right to another".

 

The right to self is your ability to exercise property rights, to basically voluntarily do what you want. For example the right to speak, the right to do drugs, the right to do business.

 

The right to another is to take from another for "the common good", the right to education means that someone must provide you with education, the right to healthcare means someone must provide you healthcare, it is a form of imposing slavery on others.

 

The reason I bring up these two is that they both only exist in the presence of coercion, if there was not a government regulating what you can choose to do or forcing you to do x then nobody would even consider the existence of rights. We only consider the existence of rights when we believe they can be taken away.

[cobra2411]

I disagree that there is a right to another - that's a state created idea. A right as an attribute exists whether the state exists or not. I don't believe rights can be taken away and even the state defines them as inherent; implying they cannot be removed. 

 

If we build on the idea of self ownership then the results of our efforts are our own. I don't think there is a dispute over that. Any claim from another to our efforts is therefore false. It's no different than me saying the sky is purple and unicorns exist. I can say them all I want and people can want to believe me but it's simply not true. Since you do not have a claim over another's body than any so called "Right" that involves force over another is false and invalid. Claiming rights don't exist because someone tries to create an invalid "right" is illogical. Rights are attributes and they stem from property and the concept of self ownership. 

 

Most that parrot the "I have a right to an (free) education" are really just saying "I want to put a gun to someone's hand but not get blood all over me." 

[Kevin Beal]

(I haven't seen the video yet)

I disagree that there is a right to another - that's a state created idea. A right as an attribute exists whether the state exists or not. I don't believe rights can be taken away and even the state defines them as inherent; implying they cannot be removed.

They can be taken away via contract.

 

Generally rights describe obligations, authorizations, certification, responsibilities, duties, etc, and power structures generally. These are institutional facts that are represented through contract.

 

When people talk about having a human right, or a right to healthcare or education or a decent living, etc, they are talking about getting the benefit of a contract that they did not sign, and that they did not uphold.

 

Imagine me renting a granny unit from you. You expect me to pay, but I contend that it is my right to have it without paying. It's theft. That's all it is.

 

But if all we are talking about is contracts, talking about it being a "right", that I'm entitled to it and so forth, is to confuse the issue. My "right" to my paycheck is conditional on me carrying out my duties. I am not entitled to it.

 

If it's a "human right" then if you can account for immorality logically, then there is absolutely no need to invent such a thing. The only "right" that UPB even mentions is property rights. And Stef provides a logical proof for property rights using the analytical argument which he recently detailed. I'd be interested to see how he distinguishes property rights from human rights in the video...

 

*presses watch video later button*

[alexqr1]

 

There are two kinds of rights that I see, "The right to self", and "The right to another".

 

These is the difference between positive and negative rights.

Positive rights can not be universal, consistent and be applied to reality all at the same time, thus positive rights can not exist objectively.

On the other hand, negative rights not only are universal, consistent and applicable to reality so that they can be a part of a theory of ethics, they must be a part of a theory of ethics in order for it to be truly universal.

[Culain]

Alex, I don't believe rights exist. My post was supposed to imply and maybe I did a bad job at it is - that it's the State that creates these fictional rights and then creates its' legitimacy by protecting those fictional rights. It's like having your leg broken by the government, being offered crutches, and then being told that without the government you wouldn't be able to walk.

[dsayers]

I was going to post about this also. I'm curious as to why it wasn't posted in the thread about the video itself, where it would serve to help the most about of people.

 

Anyways, I made this same error once before and actually have alex to thank for helping me get past that mental blind spot here.

 

Just because the State would have you believe that anarchy is total chaos and destruction does not invalidate the concept of anarchy! Similarly, just because the majority of people misuse the word right does not mean it is an invalid concept. I still think that amid those misbeliefs, that using the word property might be more productive than the word right, it is still talking about the same thing more or less.

 

I own myself and I have exclusive right to myself in most contexts are the exact same claim. I have the right to my car. Not because I have the right to A car, but because I provided value to others, stored the reciprocal value, and used that stored value to exchange for a car, making it my car, which I now have exclusive rights to because it is now my property.

[cynicist]

Try to define what a right is exactly. If you can come up with a good definition I'd love to hear it. (I've tried, it's not as easy as it sounds)

[cobra2411]

Try to define what a right is exactly. If you can come up with a good definition I'd love to hear it. (I've tried, it's not as easy as it sounds)

Right: The power of free and unencumbered action that is a permanent and essential attribute of all humans. 

 

How's that. 

 

Dsayers, I apologize, I didn't see the other thread or I would have posted there. What section is it under?

[cynicist]

Right: The power of free and unencumbered action that is a permanent and essential attribute of all humans. 

 

How's that. 

 

Dsayers, I apologize, I didn't see the other thread or I would have posted there. What section is it under?

 

If it's a permanent attribute then how can a right be given or taken away? What would be the point in protecting them if they could not be violated? I'm telling you, it's hard!  (though please keep them coming if you like, the closest I could get was 'a legal construct')

[greekredemption]

Right: The power of free and unencumbered action that is a permanent and essential attribute of all humans. 

 

Isn't this what we call liberty?

[TheRobin]

Try to define what a right is exactly. If you can come up with a good definition I'd love to hear it. (I've tried, it's not as easy as it sounds)

How about this: If there's a conflict between 2 or more people the right tells you who's right. (Including who's right to use force if necessary, if the other person doesn't accept that)

[cynicist]

How about this: If there's a conflict between 2 or more people the right tells you who's right. (Including who's right to use force if necessary, if the other person doesn't accept that)

 

That's not a definition of what exactly a right is, it's an explanation of what it's used for.

[TheRobin]

That's not a definition of what exactly a right is, it's an explanation of what it's used for.

Then I don't know what it is that you're asking. (Also, what things are used for is at times the essential chracteristic that defines them, so if you want to argue that what something is used for can never be a definition (or part of the definition) of the thing itself then you're incorrect.)

[cynicist]

Then I don't know what it is that you're asking. (Also, what things are used for is at times the essential chracteristic that defines them, so if you want to argue that what something is used for can never be a definition (or part of the definition) of the thing itself then you're incorrect.)

 

Using a word in it's own definition is unhelpful. It's like if I ask what a hose is and you say, "A hose is what I use to water my lawn". That would be an explanation of its function but not its properties. In this example you could be talking about a watering can just as easily since it can also be used to water your lawn. If instead you said "A flexible tube" then I would understand the nature of what a hose actually is. (If you said "A flexible tube used to convey water" then I would have both its function and its properties in the same definition)

[TheRobin]

Using a word in it's own definition is unhelpful. It's like if I ask what a hose is and you say, "A hose is what I use to water my lawn". That would be an explanation of its function but not its properties. In this example you could be talking about a watering can just as easily since it can also be used to water your lawn. If instead you said "A flexible tube" then I would understand the nature of what a hose actually is. (If you said "A flexible tube used to convey water" then I would have both its function and its properties in the same definition)

Okay, then a right would be " A principle used to determine who's right in a conflict"

[cynicist]

Okay, then a right would be " A principle used to determine who's right in a conflict"

 

So If I say I have a right to own a gun, I'm saying I have a principle to own a gun? And if I say that my rights are being taken away, I mean my principles are being taken away? That doesn't make sense to me. What is a right to a job or a right to a free education?

 

People don't talk about rights as if they are principles. If they were, why wouldn't we just call them that like we do with the NAP?

[Noesis]

May I try?

 

A "right" is: a privilege to carry out the defined certain action (or set of actions) with legal sanction, and/or the assurance that certain defined things will be protected by enforcement to the degree specified, as assigned by the person or group with the greatest power amongst a specific group or in a specific geographic area.

[TheRobin]

So If I say I have a right to own a gun, I'm saying I have a principle to own a gun? And if I say that my rights are being taken away, I mean my principles are being taken away? 

It would mean that there's a principle called gun-ownership, that says, if there's a conflict between you wanting to own a gun and someone else wanting you to not own a gun, you'd be right to own the gun and could use force if necessary to defend your gun from being taken against your will.

[cobra2411]

If it's a permanent attribute then how can a right be given or taken away? What would be the point in protecting them if they could not be violated? I'm telling you, it's hard!  (though please keep them coming if you like, the closest I could get was 'a legal construct')

They can't be taken away. 

 

Did something fundamentally change to the humans the nazi's marched into the gas chambers that removed their right to life? No, they still had a right to live and Hitler's state violated that right and murdered them. Rights are not guarantees. Someone can violate your right to life and we call that murder. Since you can be murdered does that mean we shouldn't try and protect our lives? 

 

It's not hard. That definition took about 30 seconds for me to come up with and I really like it. If you start with the idea of self ownership leading to property rights then you need to identify both property and rights. Your body is your property and the right is the ability to do the things you do without being interfered with. 

 

Lets go back to the "I have a right to an education" statement. Yes, you do. I can't go to Stef and say "Hey, you've learned enough - stop!". Now, I have a right to work, or gain the fruits of the labor of my body and mind, so I can say "Hey Stef, I'll teach you but it'll cost a billion trillion dollars." If he forces me to teach him without paying or defrauds me by saying he'll pay later then he's initiated force against me. That is the ultimate litmus test of what a right is and is not. If it involves the initiation of force against someone then it's not a right. 

 

(I haven't seen the video yet)

They can be taken away via contract.

 

Generally rights describe obligations, authorizations, certification, responsibilities, duties, etc, and power structures generally. These are institutional facts that are represented through contract.

 

When people talk about having a human right, or a right to healthcare or education or a decent living, etc, they are talking about getting the benefit of a contract that they did not sign, and that they did not uphold.

 

Imagine me renting a granny unit from you. You expect me to pay, but I contend that it is my right to have it without paying. It's theft. That's all it is.

 

But if all we are talking about is contracts, talking about it being a "right", that I'm entitled to it and so forth, is to confuse the issue. My "right" to my paycheck is conditional on me carrying out my duties. I am not entitled to it.

 

If it's a "human right" then if you can account for immorality logically, then there is absolutely no need to invent such a thing. The only "right" that UPB even mentions is property rights. And Stef provides a logical proof for property rights using the analytical argument which he recently detailed. I'd be interested to see how he distinguishes property rights from human rights in the video...

 

*presses watch video later button*

Rights can not be taken or given. Period. Now, if I agree to do X, Y and Z and if I don't you can kill me that doesn't remove my right to life as it's my voluntary descision to enter that contract. If you and I entered that contract and Stef comes along and kills me then it's still murder as he's violated my right to life. 

 

In my opinion you have self ownership, the concept of property and rights, then contracts. You can not force me to do anything, but you can entice me to. If you offer me a sandwich to sweep your floor and I agree then we've just negotiated and entered into a contract. That works because you own the sandwich and have the right to use it as you wish and I own and have a right to my body and it's efforts and can do as I wish and we can trade those services voluntarily. None of that alters our rights - I don't become a slave temporarily or permanently because I've entered into a contract for work. 

 

 

Generally rights describe obligations, authorizations, certification, responsibilities, duties, etc, and power structures generally.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. Rights are simply the freedom to do as we wish so long as it doesn't interfere with others. What you describe are based out of contracts which is the next step. 

 

Just because the State would have you believe that anarchy is total chaos and destruction does not invalidate the concept of anarchy! Similarly, just because the majority of people misuse the word right does not mean it is an invalid concept. I still think that amid those misbeliefs, that using the word property might be more productive than the word right, it is still talking about the same thing more or less.

 

I own myself and I have exclusive right to myself in most contexts are the exact same claim. I have the right to my car. Not because I have the right to A car, but because I provided value to others, stored the reciprocal value, and used that stored value to exchange for a car, making it my car, which I now have exclusive rights to because it is now my property.

Property is a noun and rights is an adjective - if that makes sense. Rights are the freedom to use your property without interference. 

 

Isn't this what we call liberty?

They're very closely related.

 

 

And lastly, Stef, if you read this I hope you don't mind that I had fun using you in some of my examples...

[cynicist]

Right: The power of free and unencumbered action that is a permanent and essential attribute of all humans. 

 

I just realized that is the definition of freedom lol.

 

It's not hard. That definition took about 30 seconds for me to come up with and I really like it. If you start with the idea of self ownership leading to property rights then you need to identify both property and rights. Your body is your property and the right is the ability to do the things you do without being interfered with. 

 

Your definition is incomplete, it doesn't cover contractual rights. (or obligations/requirements of the government, such as providing a lawyer or paying legal expenses if you can't get one yourself as in the right to counsel) 

 

Lets go back to the "I have a right to an education" statement. Yes, you do. I can't go to Stef and say "Hey, you've learned enough - stop!". Now, I have a right to work, or gain the fruits of the labor of my body and mind, so I can say "Hey Stef, I'll teach you but it'll cost a billion trillion dollars." If he forces me to teach him without paying or defrauds me by saying he'll pay later then he's initiated force against me. That is the ultimate litmus test of what a right is and is not. If it involves the initiation of force against someone then it's not a right. 

 

You know that's not what people mean when they say that they have a right to an education or a right to a job. They mean that they should have it, and not having it is a violation of their right. How can you say that they are wrong? (to be clear they are saying the government has an obligation to provide it)

 

May I try?

 

A "right" is: a privilege to carry out the defined certain action (or set of actions) with legal sanction, and/or the assurance that certain defined things will be protected by enforcement to the degree specified, as assigned by the person or group with the greatest power amongst a specific group or in a specific geographic area.

 

Dead on imo. The only problem then is that its existence is predicated on the government and legal system. There's no basis for it in material reality, it's just a fiction created in order to control the behavior of individuals.

[cobra2411]

I just realized that is the definition of freedom lol.

 

Yeah, kind of is. 

 

 

Your definition is incomplete, it doesn't cover contractual rights. (or obligations/requirements of the government, such as providing a lawyer or paying legal expenses if you can't get one yourself as in the right to counsel) 

I don't think it's incomplete. It's simply the base foundation that everything is built on.

 

Contractual rights. I own my body and it's output and can voluntarily exchange those actions for something else. So I have a right to contract because for someone else to prevent me from doing so would be an initiation of force on their part. Anything voluntarily agree to in the contract is contractual. Now if someone doesn't pay, then they have stolen my time, i.e. violated my right to work. 

 

Right to counsel. You have a right to life and the ability to defend it. When the attacker is a 300lb mad man you turn to Samuel Colt. When it's a crazed bureaucratic you hire a lawyer. Now... Payment for such is a different issue entirely. You have the right to an attorney but not for free. In a stateless society the looser would pay all legal costs. The fact that in today's society it's been perverted doesn't change what is and isn't a right.  A right can not initiate force or it's not a right. 

 

 

 

You know that's not what people mean when they say that they have a right to an education or a right to a job. They mean that they should have it, and not having it is a violation of their right. How can you say that they are wrong? (to be clear they are saying the government has an obligation to provide it)

Yes, I know what they mean and I've addressed that. I have a right to and education really is meant as I want to put a gun to someone's head and force them to provide for me. Remember, any so called right that includes the use of force is not a right. 

[cynicist]

Right to counsel. You have a right to life and the ability to defend it. When the attacker is a 300lb mad man you turn to Samuel Colt. When it's a crazed bureaucratic you hire a lawyer. Now... Payment for such is a different issue entirely. You have the right to an attorney but not for free. In a stateless society the looser would pay all legal costs. The fact that in today's society it's been perverted doesn't change what is and isn't a right.  A right can not initiate force or it's not a right. 

 

The right to counsel specifically means regardless of whether you can pay or not. Seems to me you are just using the word right with the meaning of freedom. Why not just use that word instead and say you are free to hire a lawyer? Or say you are free to live? Do you just prefer the word right or is there additional meaning that distinguishes it from freedom?

[dsayers]

Lets go back to the "I have a right to an education" statement. Yes, you do.

 

No you don't. Saying you have a right to an education means others must educate you. This is an unchosen positive obligation and is immoral. Just as saying you have a right to live means others have the obligation to keep you alive. The link I provided does a very good job of covering this.

 

Now, if you choose to pursue education in a fashion that doesn't violate the property of others, then it would be immoral for others to initiate the use of force to obstruct your pursuit. This is not the same as a right to education.

[cobra2411]

The right to counsel specifically means regardless of whether you can pay or not. Seems to me you are just using the word right with the meaning of freedom. Why not just use that word instead and say you are free to hire a lawyer? Or say you are free to live? Do you just prefer the word right or is there additional meaning that distinguishes it from freedom?

 

Where does it specifically say you have the right to counsel whether you can pay or not? 

 

Rights are the power of free action, liberty is freedom from external control. Liberty is another word for freedom and I believe liberty and feedom to be interchangeable with rights. Stef's video specifically addressed rights, so that's what I'm addressing here. 

 

No you don't. Saying you have a right to an education means others must educate you. This is an unchosen positive obligation and is immoral. Just as saying you have a right to live means others have the obligation to keep you alive. The link I provided does a very good job of covering this.

 

Now, if you choose to pursue education in a fashion that doesn't violate the property of others, then it would be immoral for others to initiate the use of force to obstruct your pursuit. This is not the same as a right to education.

 

I disagree, but we may be disputing semantics here, not sure. I haven't had a chance to watch the video but I will later. 

 

Rights cannot initiate force; if they do they're not rights. Since all humans are the same then all humans have the power of free action. The minute you bump up against another persons power of free action you have two choices; Initiate force or not. To initiate force is to violate another person's power of free action, so the only moral choice is voluntary interaction without the initiation of force. I don't see how any of this creates an unchosen positive obligation. 

 

You have a right to life and that means I cannot kill you or I've violated your right to life and destroyed your property. On the other hand, if you choose not to live that's a different story as it's your life and you're free to do with it as you wish. Your choice not to live in no way creates any obligation in anyone to take care of you. 

[cynicist]

Where does it specifically say you have the right to counsel whether you can pay or not? 

 

Pick a dictionary, I think they all have the same definition for it. This is why I don't think that the word freedom is interchangeable with rights and why I think it takes more than 30 seconds to figure out what they are.

[dsayers]

You have a right to life and that means I cannot kill you

 

No, right to life means if my kidney fails, you owe me yours. You cannot kill me would indicate a right to not be murdered. Not the same.

[alexqr1]

Man I leave the boards for about a day and the conversation exploded. Anyway:

 

No, right to life means if my kidney fails, you owe me yours. You cannot kill me would indicate a right to not be murdered. Not the same.

 

Exactly!

 

A right can never require positive action, otherwise, rights would be arbitrary and irrelevant.

[cobra2411]

Pick a dictionary, I think they all have the same definition for it. This is why I don't think that the word freedom is interchangeable with rights and why I think it takes more than 30 seconds to figure out what they are.

 

I listed the definition from blacks law dictionary in my first post, it says nothing about free service, nor does the sixth amendment. Can you cite one that does?

 

No, right to life means if my kidney fails, you owe me yours. You cannot kill me would indicate a right to not be murdered. Not the same.

 

Please define what a right is. I have offered both my definition and black's laws definition and I fail to see your conclusions. It seems like you are arguing from the opinion of what a right is. 

[alexqr1]

 

Exactly!

 

A right can never require positive action, otherwise, rights would be arbitrary and irrelevant.

 

I want to correct myself here. A right CAN in fact require positive action IF and ONLY IF the individual(s) required to perform the action(s) willingly accepted the obligation to perform those actions in advanced or renounced to a specific negative right by violating someone else's negative rights.

 

There are mainly two disciplines to which rights are of importance, one is law (I don't think anyone here is really referring to that area of study here), the other one is ethics.

 

I'd say that rights are moral entitlements that individuals have that require other individual's either positive or negative actions.

Negative rights are entitlements that every person has if we are to have an objective and universal theory of ethics. They can only be willfully renounced through contract or by violating someone else's rights.

Positive rights are entitlements that individuals acquire from other individuals through contract or by someone else violating the individual's rights.

 

I hope that is clear enough, this is when being a native speaker would come in really handy but I think you'll be able to understand what I mean.

[cynicist]

I listed the definition from blacks law dictionary in my first post, it says nothing about free service, nor does the sixth amendment. Can you cite one that does?

 

The sixth amendment doesn't define what the right to counsel is beyond "the assistance of counsel" which is why courts have interpreted it to mean that if you are too poor to hire one then the state must provide one for you. The sixth amendment also mentions a right to an impartial jury, which means that the state is required to provide you with a jury that is impartial. (My point is to say that part of what constitutional rights are includes obligations or requirements on the state, not just freedoms for the individual and of which, the right to counsel is just one of many) 

 

It took me a while but I found a reference which cites Black's Law Dictionary 139 (9th ed. 2009), stating the right to counsel as:

 

"A criminal defendant's constitutional right, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, to representation by a court-appointed lawyer if the defendant cannot afford to hire one."

 

Source

 

If you search any other dictionary besides that one (which is hard to search on the internet for some reason) the sources are plentiful.

 

Since Stef's argument is that the state created rights to "sell" us something lets look at what the state defines a "right" as. Blacks law 4th edition defines a right as "a power, privilege, faculty, or demandinherent in one person and incident upon another ... powers of free action." Now inherent is defined as "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute." So the state defines a right as a power or privilege that's a permanent and essential attribute of a person. Nowhere does it say it's a gift of the state. 

 

Even looking at your first post you include 'privilege and demand inherent in one person and incident upon another" as part of your definition of a right. So if I say I have a privilege to or I demand a free education which is paid for by others and say that this is a permanent and essential attribute, who can say that is not a right of mine?

 

If rights are just freedoms we possess, then why have a constitution at all? Or why have amendments to it afterwards? The whole point is to define limits for the state (which exists as a concept in order to violate self-ownership and property) so that things are less crazy.

 

A right can never require positive action, otherwise, rights would be arbitrary and irrelevant.

 

A right can be whatever the law says it is, which makes it arbitrary and irrelevant. Just look at any legal right and how it has changed over time based on court decisions. Courts try to go by precedent because that makes the law a bit less random and insane but there is nothing to say that they have to.

[dsayers]

A right can be whatever the law says it is, which makes it arbitrary and irrelevant. Just look at any legal right and how it has changed over time based on court decisions. Courts try to go by precedent because that makes the law a bit less random and insane but there is nothing to say that they have to.

 

They also call them laws instead of legislation. I think this invalidates the State as a source for term definitions. I think this begs the question of whether "legal right" and "right" are the same word. If it were, they wouldn't need the "legal" qualifier out front. I would argue the fact that it's called LEGAL right indicates they're not talking about rights at all.

[cynicist]

They also call them laws instead of legislation. I think this invalidates the State as a source for term definitions. I think this begs the question of whether "legal right" and "right" are the same word. If it were, they wouldn't need the "legal" qualifier out front. I would argue the fact that it's called LEGAL right indicates they're not talking about rights at all.

 

I only specified legal to indicate rights that are acknowledged by the legal system. Other people claim rights that are not acknowledged. (right to a job, right to an education, right to internet access... yes the UN considers internet access to be a fundamental human right) 

 

There are still others who make a distinction between what they call 'natural' rights and 'legal' rights, but if you want to make that argument there is a lot of clarification necessary.

[cobra2411]

Theory and reality are getting mashed up and mixed together here. What rights are currently considered to be and what they are in my opinion are two different things. 

 

Even looking at your first post you include 'privilege and demand inherent in one person and incident upon another" as part of your definition of a right. So if I say I have a privilege to or I demand a free education which is paid for by others and say that this is a permanent and essential attribute, who can say that is not a right of mine?

 

If rights are just freedoms we possess, then why have a constitution at all? Or why have amendments to it afterwards? The whole point is to define limits for the state (which exists as a concept in order to violate self-ownership and property) so that things are less crazy.

 

 

A right can be whatever the law says it is, which makes it arbitrary and irrelevant. Just look at any legal right and how it has changed over time based on court decisions. Courts try to go by precedent because that makes the law a bit less random and insane but there is nothing to say that they have to.

 

I started this thread because I disagreed with the idea Stef put forward that rights are a creation of the state. I used the states definition to show they exist outside of the state. The founding fathers also had the believe that rights were superior to the state. See the declaration of independence. 

 

I've offered my definition of what a right is, based both on moral beliefs and legal ones - well, at least constitutional law. You have the power to use your body without the influence of external control. If we assume that all humans are equal and logically apply that definition then since everyone has the same power to use their body without the influence of external control, initiation of force against someone violates their rights and thus can not be a right. In my mind that is the simplest definition that fully explains rights. You can then build from there. To use Dsayers kidney example, I can do anything and everything to get a kidney except use force. The state nor anyone else may interfere. Rights cease to be rights when force is involved since everyone has the freedom to be without external control. 

 

Now, how does it work today? Poorly because we're in a corrupt statist system. Of course people want to say they have the right to take from others. I contend that just like saying god is real, saying you have a right to use force against someone is false no matter how many times you say it. The state does care though. I feel that people are saying my definition is wrong because of the state has abused and manipulated what rights are. 

 

I disagree that the right to counsel includes free service. I know that's what it says, but I disagree with it - it's another perversion of the state and it fails my definition of what a right is.

 

They also call them laws instead of legislation. I think this invalidates the State as a source for term definitions. I think this begs the question of whether "legal right" and "right" are the same word. If it were, they wouldn't need the "legal" qualifier out front. I would argue the fact that it's called LEGAL right indicates they're not talking about rights at all.

 

There are two types of law, malum in se, and malum prohibitum. Malum in se is wrong in itself and covers things like murder, theft, rape, assault, etc. Malum prohibitum is what the state calls "laws", they are wrongs prohibited. Those are also called consensual crimes and in my opinion constitute slavery. The fact that it's labeled a "legal right" doesn't make it a right. Refer to my main point above - when force is involved, it's not a right. I have a right to travel. That's been upheld and never overturned by the supreme court of the US. I don't need a drivers license, I don't need to register my cars, and I don't need to follow the motor vehicle code. There's a bunch of case law on this. What happens if I do drive without a license or registration? I'll be kidnapped at gun point and my property stolen and sold. Does that mean I no longer have a right to travel? I believe I still do, it's just the state is abusing their power and not respecting it. It's my damn body and I'll move it wherever and however I like. Just as long as I don't infringe upon another. The state uses their "legal right" to protect people but that fails my definition and thus is an invalid right. 

 

I only specified legal to indicate rights that are acknowledged by the legal system. Other people claim rights that are not acknowledged. (right to a job, right to an education, right to internet access... yes the UN considers internet access to be a fundamental human right) 

 

There are still others who make a distinction between what they call 'natural' rights and 'legal' rights, but if you want to make that argument there is a lot of clarification necessary.

 

Legal rights under today's uniform commercial code are much different than legal rights under common law. Common law is much more in line with my definition and requires voluntary, knowledgeable and intelligent interactions to be valid. Under UCC you can have adhesion contracts where the simple enjoyment of the benefit constitutes the acceptance of the terms - even if you don't know what they are. Then there are the perversions. On the back of a traffic citation it tells you that you have to check a box for a guilty or not guilty plea. Failure to check a box will enter a guilty plea by default and by checking a box you acknowledge that you are doing so intelligently, knowledgeably and voluntarily. You are either guilty or you accept their contract voluntarily. Good luck arguing right to travel then as you've accepted the system and the terms and restrictions of the motor vehicle contract and you just testified that you did so knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. 

 

I know there are lots of people with lots of convoluted explanations of what rights are and what they aren't. Occam's razor states that the simplest definition that satisfactorily explains something is usually the correct one. I offered the simplest definition that I could that I feel works. To me that has served as a great tool in understanding rights. I always look for the initiation of force and once found that so called right is invalid. 

 

Why do we need a constitution or a bill of rights? Well first, there was a lot of debate about the bill of rights, which is why it wasn't released till years later. The main fear was if they listed some rights it could be interpreted that that's all the rights there are or that the state was the source of said rights. Which is the reason behind the ninth amendment. Why the constitution then? It was an attempt to control government. There have been many failed arguments about how "I didn't sign the constitution, why am I bound by it?" and the simple answer is - you're not. When you become a part of the government you swear an oath to uphold the principles contained within the constitution - thereby agreeing to be bound by it. Not comfortable with that? Don't go into government. The problem is it's been so twisted and contorted that it's about useless now, maybe worse. Take for instance the Bundy ranch issue. The feds seized state lands citing the property clause, but the property clause was the extension of the northwest ordinance that prevented states bordering the northwest territory from simply expanding till they hit the ocean. The federal government had authority over the territories up until they became states; however that's been twisted and the feral government now owns 30% of this country, mostly in the west. They own 80% of Nevada... So a document that was intended to protect the sovereignty of the states is now being used to enslave them. 

[cynicist]

Fair enough, if you equate rights with freedoms then at least I can see where the latter originates from. I have no idea why you would do that but the results are funny.

 

Why do we need a constitution or a bill of freedoms? Well first, there was a lot of debate about the bill of freedoms, which is why it wasn't released till years later. The main fear was if they listed some freedoms it could be interpreted that that's all the freedoms there are or that the state was the source of said freedoms. Which is the reason behind the ninth amendment. Why the constitution then? It was an attempt to control government.