INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: drewtheyellow on November 03, 2006, 08:45:24 PM
-
The title explains it all. The question pretty much is where rights start and where they end. The utilitarian/consequentialist does not see rights as necessarily existing, although the notions behind rights can sometimes be desirable to him, the question is the practicality of such things and he sees nothing wrong with intervening with the free actions of individuals to pursue the ideal goal. Then there are individuals that only see negative rights as existing, the view is that individuals only have a right over themselves and there actions, this can include free speech, guns or even drug use and suicide. Finally, there are individuals that view positive rights as existing, ultimately these individuals see society as having a duty to individuals to act in a manner to help them, such as a right to healthcare, welfare, employment, housing, social security, etc, but often tend to also see individuals as having some negative rights.
The big reason why I ask this question is because right is a word that is thrown around by individuals seeking various ends so pretty much I am curious about the views of individuals here. I suppose that it is best to go with the option that one agrees with the most as nobody is a perfect embodiment of any of the 3.
-
I need to get some serious sleep before I even try to answer this question!
-
freedom, equality, a level playing feild, shelter, food, healthcare. are human rights. in my opinion
internet, jobs, money, prostitutes and movies are something else
-
freedom, equality, a level playing feild, shelter, food, healthcare. are human rights. in my opinion
internet, jobs, money, prostitutes and movies are something else
Well, quite a few of those are positive rights, so I suppose you picked positive rights?
-
yes
-
freedom, equality, a level playing feild, shelter, food, healthcare. are human rights. in my opinion
internet, jobs, money, prostitutes and movies are something else
Actualy, I'd put money somewhere in between. Money is afterall power and to much power and money in the hands of too few is always bad.
-
Actualy, I'd put money somewhere in between. Money is afterall power and to much power and money in the hands of too few is always bad.
A right to receive money is positive, a right to keep money one earned is negative, and some societal oversight on the money of others is utilitarian, but is also adopted by believers in positive rights.
-
Why is the right to keep money a negative??
-
Why is the right to keep money a negative??
The right to one's own property is generally considered a negative right and money is a form of property. I could go deeper into this justification if I just looked up stuff on Locke and on Austrian thought.
-
i voted positive rights because it sounded the most like me
-
Ahhhhhh keeping it to oneself deprives it from others.........I get it!!
-
Ahhhhhh keeping it to oneself deprives it from others.........I get it!!
Not so much deprivation from others as the right to keep it for oneself and control one's destiny. Negative in this instance does not necessarily mean bad, however, the notion of negative rights do get in the way of the beliefs of positive rights people and utilitarians and can be bad from their point of view in a manner described by yourself.
-
Ok, I did'nt read your whole intro there. I see said the blind man!!
Personally, being a pragmatic Libertarian, I'd have to say I'm somewhere between Utilitarian and Negative.
-
Ok, I did'nt read your whole intro there. I see said the blind man!!
Personally, being a pragmatic Libertarian, I'd have to say I'm somewhere between Utilitarian and Negative.
Yeah, well, that makes sense. I probably fall in the same general range.
-
Positive rights, which mightn't surprise many. The whole idea that there should be negative rights, that is privileges, or utalitarian, that is "for the common good", I don't give a crap about. As I don't believe in God, I think laws were just made up by the rich and powerful to suppress the poor and powerless. There isn't anything objectively forbidden, there are only human made laws.
I have my own morality. Anything that won't harm any other is a right in my eyes. That means that no one has the "right" to force me to use a seatbelt in my car or a helmet if I'd drive a motorcycle. No one has the right to stop me from making explosives and blowing them up on my own ground, as long as I don't harm other people and their property. I have the right to drink or dope myself to death. It's none other's business. And I wouldn't search medical help for it if I were dying from alcoholism or drug abuse, so I wouldn't cost "society" any money.
Crimes against authorities are usually OK, if that doesn't mean that I indirectly cause real damage to other people. At least economical crimes are OK. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's OK to hurt or kill cops, as they voluntarily have chosen to be the tools of the oppressors, but sometimes they have.
-
Positive rights, which mightn't surprise many. The whole idea that there should be negative rights, that is privileges, or utalitarian, that is "for the common good", I don't give a crap about. As I don't believe in God, I think laws were just made up by the rich and powerful to suppress the poor and powerless. There isn't anything objectively forbidden, there are only human made laws.
I have my own morality. Anything that won't harm any other is a right in my eyes. That means that no one has the "right" to force me to use a seatbelt in my car or a helmet if I'd drive a motorcycle. No one has the right to stop me from making explosives and blowing them up on my own ground, as long as I don't harm other people and their property. I have the right to drink or dope myself to death. It's none other's business. And I wouldn't search medical help for it if I were dying from alcoholism or drug abuse, so I wouldn't cost "society" any money.
Crimes against authorities are usually OK, if that doesn't mean that I indirectly cause real damage to other people. At least economical crimes are OK. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's OK to hurt or kill cops, as they voluntarily have chosen to be the tools of the oppressors, but sometimes they have.
Ditto.
i have been preaching this for years. just not quite as well.
-
I voted positive, but, I see my beliefs as a smattering of the other philosophies as well!
-
Positive rights, which mightn't surprise many. The whole idea that there should be negative rights, that is privileges, or utalitarian, that is "for the common good", I don't give a crap about. As I don't believe in God, I think laws were just made up by the rich and powerful to suppress the poor and powerless. There isn't anything objectively forbidden, there are only human made laws.
I have my own morality. Anything that won't harm any other is a right in my eyes. That means that no one has the "right" to force me to use a seatbelt in my car or a helmet if I'd drive a motorcycle. No one has the right to stop me from making explosives and blowing them up on my own ground, as long as I don't harm other people and their property. I have the right to drink or dope myself to death. It's none other's business. And I wouldn't search medical help for it if I were dying from alcoholism or drug abuse, so I wouldn't cost "society" any money.
Crimes against authorities are usually OK, if that doesn't mean that I indirectly cause real damage to other people. At least economical crimes are OK. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's OK to hurt or kill cops, as they voluntarily have chosen to be the tools of the oppressors, but sometimes they have.
Ditto.
i have been preaching this for years. just not quite as well.
I'm with Litigious and McJ on this one. :agreed:
-
Positive rights, which mightn't surprise many. The whole idea that there should be negative rights, that is privileges, or utalitarian, that is "for the common good", I don't give a crap about. As I don't believe in God, I think laws were just made up by the rich and powerful to suppress the poor and powerless. There isn't anything objectively forbidden, there are only human made laws.
I have my own morality. Anything that won't harm any other is a right in my eyes. That means that no one has the "right" to force me to use a seatbelt in my car or a helmet if I'd drive a motorcycle. No one has the right to stop me from making explosives and blowing them up on my own ground, as long as I don't harm other people and their property. I have the right to drink or dope myself to death. It's none other's business. And I wouldn't search medical help for it if I were dying from alcoholism or drug abuse, so I wouldn't cost "society" any money.
Crimes against authorities are usually OK, if that doesn't mean that I indirectly cause real damage to other people. At least economical crimes are OK. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's OK to hurt or kill cops, as they voluntarily have chosen to be the tools of the oppressors, but sometimes they have.
Um... negative rights aren't priveleges, they are the absolute rights over your body. A belief in negative rights means that you have the absolute right to drink yourself to death, that you can own guns, and that you can do anything you want to yourself without hurting somebody else. They have the name not because they are bad, but to distinguish themselves from positive rights. I don't know if I was really clear with that. If you want a better view of this concept then think like this: negative rights are very US libertarian, positive rights tend to be very left-wing, and utilitarianism can be anything but can be somewhat authoritarian as the idea allows for state power and intervention on human action.
-
Utilitarian is probably the closest description, though there is a strong blend with the others. Freedom I value very highly, so for me, balancing the system in order to maximize freedom while keeping it well-functioning is desirable. Though the largest, most significant by far of the freedoms I'd sacrifice in order to make many others possible, I doubt more than a few would agree with.
There isn't anything objectively forbidden, there are only human made laws.
Indeed. In my idea of a society, obligations and privileges would be decided though contracts; sign a contract, binding yourself to the following of a set of terms, and in return you gain a set of privileges. One basic contract with a minimum trade-off would be required for citizenship, and others could be used for various purposes, between the state, individuals and organisations as they choose.
I have my own morality. Anything that won't harm any other is a right in my eyes. That means that no one has the "right" to force me to use a seatbelt in my car or a helmet if I'd drive a motorcycle. No one has the right to stop me from making explosives and blowing them up on my own ground, as long as I don't harm other people and their property. I have the right to drink or dope myself to death. It's none other's business. And I wouldn't search medical help for it if I were dying from alcoholism or drug abuse, so I wouldn't cost "society" any money.
Perfectly sensible to me, and similar to my own. Enforcing unnecessary restrictions is a waste of time and effort. In my view, limiting the freedoms of those intelligent and conciderate in order to minimize the risks for those less so is quite counter-productive.
-
freedom, equality, a level playing feild, shelter, food, healthcare. are human rights. in my opinion
internet, jobs, money, prostitutes and movies are something else
Actualy, I'd put money somewhere in between. Money is afterall power and to much power and money in the hands of too few is always bad.
well i can understand that. while i don't necessarily agree with capitalism, i don't think money is an inherrit right, since when you are born you don't come out of your moms pussy with a wallet full of cash. (some people do) but thats the luck of the draw. everyone has to earn theres legally or illegally. money is more of a choice. i know plently of people who live out in the woods off of almost next to nothing and hunt and gather for there livelyhood.
-
Um... negative rights aren't priveleges, they are the absolute rights over your body. A belief in negative rights means that you have the absolute right to drink yourself to death, that you can own guns, and that you can do anything you want to yourself without hurting somebody else. They have the name not because they are bad, but to distinguish themselves from positive rights. I don't know if I was really clear with that. If you want a better view of this concept then think like this: negative rights are very US libertarian, positive rights tend to be very left-wing, and utilitarianism can be anything but can be somewhat authoritarian as the idea allows for state power and intervention on human action.
Oh, you mean "negative" as in "bad". I thought you meant negative as in "allowed conditionally" as opposed to "allowed unconditionally". That's what's usually is meant with negative and positive rights, at least in European philosophy.
-
Oh, you mean "negative" as in "bad". I thought you meant negative as in "allowed conditionally" as opposed to "allowed unconditionally". That's what's usually is meant with negative and positive rights, at least in European philosophy.
No, not negative as in bad. "they have the name not because they are bad". Here, wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights). I am sorry if I have been the unclear one, however, I did try to make sure that everything was somewhat clear.
-
OK, it's obviously my mistake. Then it's the other way around. Negative rights.
-
I voted utilitarian but I still don't see how right to arms, drugs, and suicide are negative. Yeah, suicide is one of those things where most people see it as a tragedy and since we can't tangibly argue about the existence or lack there of in reference to God it stands to reason that its a bit ambiguous even if the person doesn't hate themselves as much as they just hate this world, being a human being, and maybe their understanding of what we really are and their wanting no part in it got a little too carried away emotionally. As for arms - its a crime deterant, criminals will have them regardless so would you rather have citizens seem less vulnerable to crime or more vulnerable. Drugs - that depends on what drugs we're talking about, weed seems to help a lot of very high-strung and otherwise intelligent people calm themselves down in a rather fashionable way (as opposed to haldol or risperidal) so they can live productive lives and any kind of trip - mushrooms, LSD 25, mescaline, can add to someone's perspective immensely as well as help people even overcome neurological disabilities psychologically to a point. With respect to crystal meth, glass, ice, crack, coke, and other speeds I can't say I've heard much positive from them, opiates I can't say other than that they're strong enough in terms of addictive value to get people to pawn prized possessions or even rob to avoid DTs' - particularly if someone's banging heroin instead of blowing lines, and if they say you can get so far out of touch on it that you could even half starve and rot your teeth out then its recreational merits are far outweighed by side-effects.
On the list of positive rights - sounds like entitlements and I think they should be there for those who don't have the capacity to keep up with society but those who can need to get off their lazy asses and pay just like anyone else. In other words I think the Medicare/Medicade idea is good but as far as people being given things, again, goes back to the fact that as human beings we'd rather take the path that gives us the most for the minimum effort (its really all economics) and that means if we didn't have heirarchy delivering all kinds of reputational pressure we'd all be signing up for those services and who'd be left to flip the bill. Yeah, you could take like 50% of a person's paycheck who's willing to work in taxes but that starves industry, government gets huge, and the second government has unilateral control of healthcare it means that you have big brother in your life telling you what you can or can't do even moreso than now.
-
Suicide is negative as negative rights are simply rights to one's own person. THEY ARE NOT BAD!!!!!!! Negative is just a title given. Some can be seen as bad but they are not bad by default! Bah!! I really have no idea how I should have phrased the title better, I was hoping that people would just see negative as a title rather than a description as well, I tried to use the proper terms and explain how things worked, bah whatever!
Positive rights are viewed by some as entitlements and not as real rights. It really depends on your view of things, like I said earlier, left-wingers are more likely to view these things as rights spurred on by notions of social justice, libertarian-leaning people will often despise this very notion viewing these "rights" as illegitimate and even as violations of the negative rights that they support.
-
Positive rights are viewed by some as entitlements and not as real rights. It really depends on your view of things, like I said earlier, left-wingers are more likely to view these things as rights spurred on by notions of social justice, libertarian-leaning people will despise this very notion viewing these "rights" as illegitimate and even as violations of the negative rights that they support.
I would have to agree. Many so called "positive" rights are dependent on someone giving you something you did'nt produce or somehow earn. In order to obtain that therefore, it had to be taken from someone else.
-
ok, if negative and positive are meant in the legalistic sense ok. Still though, drugs aren't a negative because there's laws in place against their use, gun ownership is of course in the constitution making it positive law, and suicide could be a negatively defined right but I'd be curious to see what law it would be attatched to as an 'implied' or negative right.
-
ok, if negative and positive are meant in the legalistic sense ok. Still though, drugs aren't a negative because there's laws in place against their use, gun ownership is of course in the constitution making it positive law, and suicide could be a negatively defined right but I'd be curious to see what law it would be attatched to as an 'implied' or negative right.
Negative and positive don't mean that they are allowed by law. Negative is just the right to use your own body and extensions of it in whatever way you want, and positive is the right to things provided by others. Drugs are negative as the right to make them is inherent in the right to property and the right to use them is inherent to the right to ones own body which are both basic negative rights, one has their body so long as nobody enslaves them and has their property so long as nobody steals from them. This does not mean that our law will allow it, however, it is a negative right. Gun ownership is also a negative right as it is derived from property, and suicide comes from self-ownership. The only ways that you can't have drugs, guns, and suicide is if somebody intervenes in your actions
-
Everyone cares about it more than I do, so they can argue over it, and whenever they finally pick something, i'm cool with whatever.
I don't really believe in rights that exist outside of the relationships people make between each other. I think they make up rights they're cool with, and fight over rights that some people have problems with, and what rights they finally pick are halfway arbitrary, and halfway dependant on what a living creature and/or a group of living creatures would benefit from having. And I do have some preferences, but i recognize they are arbitrary, and it seems like everyone else cares more about having their way than I do, so I'll let them decide.
-
Rights are whatever you can get away with. Depending on where you are, your social status, your economic status, your race, religion, etc.... your rights change drastically. In Detroit, MI you have the right to drive pretty much however you want, completely ignoring driving laws. In the surrounding suburbs, you have the right to remain silent for driving the same way. In many places, you don't have the right to remain silent; you'll be tortured to death for it. Government officials have the right to torture others and do whatever else as they see fit.
For instance, take ambassadors to the US. They are allowed to bring whatever the hell they want into the country. It is literally ILLEGAL to search an foreign ambassador coming into the country. If they want to bring a kilo of coke in their briefcase, it doesn't matter how much those dogs bark, there's nothing anyone can do. By the same token, any given Mexican carrying that same kilo across the border in their... donkey... would get life in prison for trafficking.
Taking it back to a more fundamentally philosophical level, we have the human right to do harm unto another. By the same token, they have the right to do harm to us in retaliation. It is a matter of what we can get away with and still maintain a functioning society. Even then, we have the right to ATTEMPT to throw society into chaos but others have the right to try and stop us as it suits their own needs.
-
Rights are whatever you can get away with. Depending on where you are, your social status, your economic status, your race, religion, etc.... your rights change drastically. In Detroit, MI you have the right to drive pretty much however you want, completely ignoring driving laws. In the surrounding suburbs, you have the right to remain silent for driving the same way. In many places, you don't have the right to remain silent; you'll be tortured to death for it. Government officials have the right to torture others and do whatever else as they see fit.
For instance, take ambassadors to the US. They are allowed to bring whatever the hell they want into the country. It is literally ILLEGAL to search an foreign ambassador coming into the country. If they want to bring a kilo of coke in their briefcase, it doesn't matter how much those dogs bark, there's nothing anyone can do. By the same token, any given Mexican carrying that same kilo across the border in their... donkey... would get life in prison for trafficking.
Taking it back to a more fundamentally philosophical level, we have the human right to do harm unto another. By the same token, they have the right to do harm to us in retaliation. It is a matter of what we can get away with and still maintain a functioning society. Even then, we have the right to ATTEMPT to throw society into chaos but others have the right to try and stop us as it suits their own needs.
do I have the right to fuck you in the ass for making such a relatevist argument??
-
do I have the right to fuck you in the ass for making such a relatevist argument??
According to him you have the human right to do so! So go right ahead!!! :evillaugh: >:D
-
Rights are whatever you can get away with. Depending on where you are, your social status, your economic status, your race, religion, etc.... your rights change drastically. In Detroit, MI you have the right to drive pretty much however you want, completely ignoring driving laws. In the surrounding suburbs, you have the right to remain silent for driving the same way. In many places, you don't have the right to remain silent; you'll be tortured to death for it. Government officials have the right to torture others and do whatever else as they see fit.
For instance, take ambassadors to the US. They are allowed to bring whatever the hell they want into the country. It is literally ILLEGAL to search an foreign ambassador coming into the country. If they want to bring a kilo of coke in their briefcase, it doesn't matter how much those dogs bark, there's nothing anyone can do. By the same token, any given Mexican carrying that same kilo across the border in their... donkey... would get life in prison for trafficking.
Taking it back to a more fundamentally philosophical level, we have the human right to do harm unto another. By the same token, they have the right to do harm to us in retaliation. It is a matter of what we can get away with and still maintain a functioning society. Even then, we have the right to ATTEMPT to throw society into chaos but others have the right to try and stop us as it suits their own needs.
do I have the right to fuck you in the ass for making such a relatevist argument??
Yes but I also have the right to stop you. Society has the right to punish and/or rehabilitate you for such actions if they are deemed counterproductive to societal norms. It's all about what you can get away with.