Discussion on rights

[Music Lover]

What are rights? Where do they come from? How do we know?

I'd like to hear peoples' views on this.

[ShineintheDark]

I guess rights are commonly agreed freedoms and constants in the way that citizens of a nation or group are to be treated regardless of the context and conditions surrounding the case. An example is all the human rights provided by the Geneva Convention, such as the right to life, the right to freedom of religion etc. This gets a little murky when certain 'freedoms' can also justifiably be taken away such as the right to freedom of speech, which I think we can all agree can be taken away from people who are convicted of preaching terrorism and war etc. In terms of where they come from, most f not all 'rights' are man-made concepts that are commonly agreed upon. Religious people may add that God or multiple gods have granted them to us whilst others may believe they are man-made concepts purely.

[mattsmith48]

They are two kinds of rights, the ones ShineintheDark mention, those are right that are essential to every working democracy like free speech (with some limitation), equal opportunity, believe any bullshit you want etc. and rights to have access to basic needs that are necessary for any human being to survive, food, clean water, clean air, a place to live, health care ect.

[PlasmaHam]

Rights are essentially freedoms, and as the US Constitution says they are given unto all men and women by God, and that the government's role is to simply not to hinder an individual's practice of their rights. Rights are not handouts or entitlements.

[CoryW]

I don't believe You have a right to receive food, water or housing .
But you have the RIGHT to work for food water and housing like other people do unless your under 18 and are a ward of the state.

[mattsmith48]

I don't believe You have a right to receive food, water or housing .
But you have the RIGHT to work for food water and housing like other people do unless your under 18 and are a ward of the state.

Why wouldn't it be a right to have what you need to survive?

[Spooky_Eli]

Why wouldn't it be a right to have what you need to survive?because we live in a chaotic universe and the world is not fair.

if you want something get it your self.

[mattsmith48]

because we live in a chaotic universe and the world is not fair.

if you want something get it your self.

That's not a reason that's an excuse

[Spooky_Eli]

That's not a reason that's an excuse
so you say.

[lliam]

Rights are made and defined by humans. That's it!

Details of different types of rights are historically conditioned by the social and political evolution of different peoples, and are, more or less, likely to be in flux.

[CoryW]

Why wouldn't it be a right to have what you need to survive?

Because that causes lazy ass people that don't have anything better to do than protest and bitch at everything instead of getting a job and supporting your self.

[mattsmith48]

Because that causes lazy ass people that don't have anything better to do than protest and bitch at everything instead of getting a job and supporting your self.

Thats just not true

[Uniquemind]

Because that causes lazy ass people that don't have anything better to do than protest and bitch at everything instead of getting a job and supporting your self.

I believe this to be wrong insofar as it’s logical foundation to believe this makes some fallacious assumptions.

When observable reality can prove that work isn’t always in proportion to a wage given because of an artificial society barrier on wage to effort of work variables, which mind you fluctuate according to the time period.

Few discuss the dynamic, they talk about the ideal as if it’s rooted in concrete of right/wrong.

As we discuss this concept understand we are on the third level of the foundation of belief and argumentation already, we are entering a 4th level.

[Alumni]

Because that causes lazy ass people that don't have anything better to do than protest and bitch at everything instead of getting a job and supporting your self.

Well, there are some cases where people simply don't have substantial support to make it out at times. Maybe they want to work, maybe they're fresh out of a job and don't have many options.

My parents lost have lost their jobs one or twice when we were kids and that made things complicated for us, especially when it came to basic necessities. In their positions, it's hard to find a job, and even harder to try and go back to schoall.

We lost the family car because we couldn't afford to keep it around. All those Hulu and Netflix subscriptions? Gone. The light bill sometimes? Nope. There were days where we couldn't keep it up.

We had to walk to the grocery store and back with bags in our hands. There was a time where I woke up early and walked 1/2 an hour to school, even in shitty weather. During the last week of every month, we had no food in our fridge. We don't ask for these things to happen, they just do.

Food stamps were really the only thing we had going for us at times.

I think there needs to be a better understanding as to why these people protest and 'bitch', maybe it's something that they hold dear. Maybe they're not trying to panic, because being broke isn't exactly what they ask for sometimes.

[PlasmaHam]

Well, there are some cases where people simply don't have substantial support to make it out at times. Maybe they want to work, maybe they're fresh out of a job and don't have many options

I think there needs to be a better understanding as to why these people protest and 'bitch', maybe it's something that they hold dear. Maybe they're not trying to panic, because being broke isn't exactly what they ask for sometimes.
There are plenty of cases where people enter poverty outside of their own choices, just like there are plenty of cases of people entering poverty because of bad choices and laziness. Regardless, that doesn't mean you are entitled for tax-payers to give you free things and make your life easier.

Personally, I do think most people who partake in those "gimme free stuff" protests, especially on a regular basis, are entitled and lazy people. People who actively strive to escape poverty are unlikely to think protesting is the best use of their time, and thus don't.

[Uniquemind]

There are plenty of cases where people enter poverty outside of their own choices, just like there are plenty of cases of people entering poverty because of bad choices and laziness. Regardless, that doesn't mean you are entitled for tax-payers to give you free things and make your life easier.

Personally, I do think most people who partake in those "gimme free stuff" protests, especially on a regular basis, are entitled and lazy people. People who actively strive to escape poverty are unlikely to think protesting is the best use of their time, and thus don't.

If the protests are for things of a luxurious nature, I agree with this.

But there are core things in which everyone should have access to public goods, vaccines are a good example because the whole benefits from a stronger herd immunity.

Also you have dynamics of how a town might start out peaceful, and decades later an airport is built nearby and noise pollution changes the property values of other people’s property at no fault of their own, but due to encroaching freedoms of a 3rd party who is expressing the free speech right of owning and operating a business, you see where ideology breaks down when on paper ideals are all clean and neat and perfect.

When ideals are applied to reality it gets messy, and people usually don’t amend their opinions they make excuses.

Protests aren’t inherently bad, but it depends on what they’re protesting about. What are their other options?

[ShineintheDark]

I don't believe You have a right to receive food, water or housing .
But you have the RIGHT to work for food water and housing like other people do unless your under 18 and are a ward of the state.

I think you're being a little simplistic here. No one has the RIGHT to a 5 course dinner with bottomless champagne, that's true. However, it is both inhumane and sick to deny a dying person basic bread and water so that they may live. No person, especially in advanced and wealthy societies such as our own, deserves to die because they cannot afford the basic things needed for survival.

Also, your statement implies that the two are mutually exclusive: that someone who cannot afford food and water must be a lazy bum leeching off the state. I can say as someone who comes from a country where nurses are forced to rely on food banks, where single mothers who work day and night to support their kids still rely on child benefit to see them through the month, where schools are increasingly being relied on to provide support to struggling families of children whose parents either cannot afford to feed and clothe them or simply do not have the time necessary to devote to their child. No one has a RIGHT to live like a king, but no one deserves to die for being poor.

[Music Lover]

This got a lot more answers than I was expecting. Answering a few now and saving the rest for later :)

I guess rights are commonly agreed freedoms and constants in the way that citizens of a nation or group are to be treated regardless of the context and conditions surrounding the case.

So are you saying your right to your own life depends on if others around you commonly agrees to it?

If we base morality on our concept of rights, it should not rest on the whim of others. We need to find the root of where it all stems from.

An example is all the human rights provided by the Geneva Convention, such as the right to life, the right to freedom of religion etc.

Do you think those rights are granted to citizens from respective governments or do they come from somewhere else?

This gets a little murky when certain 'freedoms' can also justifiably be taken away such as the right to freedom of speech, which I think we can all agree can be taken away from people who are convicted of preaching terrorism and war etc.

Yes, these are way further down the line. Right now, I suggest we stick to the basics :)

In terms of where they come from, most f not all 'rights' are man-made concepts that are commonly agreed upon.

If rights are man-made concepts, what should be the guiding principle in choosing what is good and what is not?

Religious people may add that God or multiple gods have granted them to us whilst others may believe they are man-made concepts purely.

Those are not the only two options. There is also a case to be made for objective rights purely from an atheistic perspective.

They are two kinds of rights, the ones ShineintheDark mention, those are right that are essential to every working democracy like free speech (with some limitation), equal opportunity, believe any bullshit you want etc. and rights to have access to basic needs that are necessary for any human being to survive, food, clean water, clean air, a place to live, health care ect.

What is the difference between the two kinds of rights you mention?

Rights are essentially freedoms, and as the US Constitution says they are given unto all men and women by God, and that the government's role is to simply not to hinder an individual's practice of their rights. Rights are not handouts or entitlements.

How did the people who wrote the constitution know what are rights? Can you explain their reasoning in your own words?

I don't believe You have a right to receive food, water or housing .
But you have the RIGHT to work for food water and housing like other people do unless your under 18 and are a ward of the state.

You have stated which are NOT rights. What rights do we have then?

Why wouldn't it be a right to have what you need to survive?

Do I have a right to the fruits of some other person's labour?

[Snowfox]

negative rights. which are more important.
-freedom of speech
-life
-private property
-freedom from violent crime
-habeas corpus
-fair trial regardles what you are accused of
-freedom of religion
-freedom of slavery
-right to protect your life and property by justifiable means what ever they happen to be. Like you should have right to use what ever necessary force to protect your life and others life as well but if someone steals your car that doesnt give you right to kill said person.
-right to breathe air
-acces to to water
- right to choose your profession or job or career. In case you qualify
-right to privacy
-right to have nationality


Just few that popped into my mind
and one extra which I love.... Right to roam

[mattsmith48]

What is the difference between the two kinds of rights you mention?

Ones are rights we all agreed are necessary to any free and fair democracy but are not essential to person survival, those are rights like free speech, equal opportunity, education.

The others are basic needs that every human being needs access to in order to survive, things like Food, clean water, health care every human no matter what have a right to receive and have access to those things at any time.

A simple question can help make the difference, if you don't get this will it cause you to die? If you don't eat you will die.

Do I have a right to the fruits of some other person's labour?

Not sure what you mean here, are you talking about stealing?

[Spooky_Eli]

Ones are rights we all agreed are necessary to any free and fair democracy but are not essential to person survival, those are rights like free speech, equal opportunity, education.

The others are basic needs that every human being needs access to in order to survive, things like Food, clean water, health care every human no matter what have a right to receive and have access to those things at any time.

A simple question can help make the difference, if you don't get this will it cause you to die? If you don't eat you will die.



Not sure what you mean here, are you talking about stealing? labor=work fruits=money

[Stronk Serb]

I do not believe in rights, I believe everything needs to be worked for and earned. You say something bad, prepare to take the flak for it, you behave like an animal, you should be put down like one. I do not hate on authority or laws, I believe that we cannot do without them, but I do believe that we can do without some "inalianable rights"

[Alumni]

There are plenty of cases where people enter poverty outside of their own choices, just like there are plenty of cases of people entering poverty because of bad choices and laziness. Regardless, that doesn't mean you are entitled for tax-payers to give you free things and make your life easier.

Personally, I do think most people who partake in those "gimme free stuff" protests, especially on a regular basis, are entitled and lazy people. People who actively strive to escape poverty are unlikely to think protesting is the best use of their time, and thus don't.

You're right, I agree.

I think taxpayers take way too much of a hit when it comes to welfare. There needs to be limitations on these things, and I feel like they'd go a long way.

I feel like guidelines with food stamps needs to be much stricter than it is in order to justify who leeches off it and who doesn't, and also, just the products themselves.

(Not going to lie, when we had food stamps, we were always tempted to buy junk foods)

For example, say Joshua was fresh out of a job. Joshua has to find a job by a certain time (say anywhere from 9-12 months), and if Joshua does not have an occupation by that time, his stamps lose benefits or drop in value.

Protesting takes time, and it improves nothing for awhile. I feel like those people have a hard time establishing the ideology of actively making it out.

[Music Lover]

Rights are made and defined by humans. That's it!

Details of different types of rights are historically conditioned by the social and political evolution of different peoples, and are, more or less, likely to be in flux.

If rights are man made and up to the whims of the powers at hand, is morality too?

Why wouldn't it be a right to have what you need to survive?
Because that causes lazy ass people that don't have anything better to do than protest and bitch at everything instead of getting a job and supporting your self.

What you stated is not a valid reason for that right not existing. It is a non-sequitur.

I believe this to be wrong insofar as it’s logical foundation to believe this makes some fallacious assumptions.

When observable reality can prove that work isn’t always in proportion to a wage given because of an artificial society barrier on wage to effort of work variables, which mind you fluctuate according to the time period.

And you're forgetting one important factor: The VALUE of work.

Someone who provides 5 times the value in one hour of work deserves five times the pay.

Few discuss the dynamic, they talk about the ideal as if it’s rooted in concrete of right/wrong.

Do you believe in moral relativism?

If the protests are for things of a luxurious nature, I agree with this.

But there are core things in which everyone should have access to public goods, vaccines are a good example because the whole benefits from a stronger herd immunity.

What are public goods? Where do they come from?

Also you have dynamics of how a town might start out peaceful, and decades later an airport is built nearby and noise pollution changes the property values of other people’s property at no fault of their own, but due to encroaching freedoms of a 3rd party who is expressing the free speech right of owning and operating a business, you see where ideology breaks down when on paper ideals are all clean and neat and perfect.

Nobody has a right not to have something built close to them, unless that results in direct danger to their life.

Violating someone elses rights of course is NOT okay.

When ideals are applied to reality it gets messy, and people usually don’t amend their opinions they make excuses.

Correction: When unsound ideas get applie to reality it gets messy. If you have sound ideals everything is pretty clear.

Ones are rights we all agreed are necessary to any free and fair democracy but are not essential to person survival, those are rights like free speech, equal opportunity, education.

Alright, good clarification. Don't agree with you just yet, though :)

The others are basic needs that every human being needs access to in order to survive, things like Food, clean water, health care every human no matter what have a right to receive and have access to those things at any time.

A distinction I want to make:
Does my right to basic needs mean that I have a claim to someone elses property if it is necessary for my survival?
Or do I have a right to try and acquire my basic needs through work and free trade?

Not sure what you mean here, are you talking about stealing?

In essence, yes. Also forced labour could also be one way to get the same kind of wrongdoing.

If person A has a right to food, it requires the work and effort of him and/or other people. The options are:
-Let him trade freely without forcing or compelling people to give him food.
-Compel or force them into giving a portion of their food to you, either directly or through government.
-Compel or force them to work without getting compensated, wither directly or through government.

The same case can be made for healthcare and education too.

I do not believe in rights, I believe everything needs to be worked for and earned.

I have a right to my life. Do I need to work for and earn it, or should people respect my life (i.e. not kill me) regardless if I am lazy?

You say something bad, prepare to take the flak for it, you behave like an animal, you should be put down like one.

Define "behaving like an animal" please.

I do not hate on authority or laws, I believe that we cannot do without them, but I do believe that we can do without some "inalianable rights"

Which ones would you throw out?

[Uniquemind]

If rights are man made and up to the whims of the powers at hand, is morality too?


Morality to an extent is shaped relativistically and actually becomes more subjective the further away you invest in story in a particular culture as it becomes a higher order society.

However, no, morality itself does not become relative nor subjective and lose its objectivity.


Rather it is the interpreters who are flawed when attempting to form dogmas to enforce their version of objective morality. Mankind does this, hence why political debates ensue and seem to go circular.

Of recent another violation has occurred insofar as that each ideology have at some point reached a wall, to double-down, and no longer commit to a truth that there is no shame in admitting mistakes, but there is an intrinsic loss of value to say I will no longer look at my faults and be less wrong the next time. Or if one says that, their actions do not follow this intention or creed.

[lliam]

[QUOTE=Music Lover;3659769]If rights are man made and up to the whims of the powers at hand, is morality too?


I made a general statement about the question in the thread title.

If humans were unable to name things, to describe states, there would be no language with words that could be used to define something .

Accordingly, there would be no rights or special rights.

Of course, rights exist anyway, undefined. Just take the situation of a single remaining wyterhole, dry season in the wilderness somewhere in Africa.

The strongest at the waterhole take the right to drink whenever they want to drink.

Morality doesn't exist here. There's just acceptence among the species at the waterhole.


As for humans, rights were fought for, developed, installed, given, taken or denied.

They are constantly changing every few generations. Same with morality.

Rights should never be taken for granted. If you want to to obtain certain rights, you've to do something about it. Maybe fight for it against whoever.

[Snowfox]

public goods... Roads for example or any natural monopolies

[Stronk Serb]

I have a right to my life. Do I need to work for and earn it, or should people respect my life (i.e. not kill me) regardless if I am lazy?



Define "behaving like an animal" please.



Which ones would you throw out?

First point: technically, yes. Murder is illegal, so is damage or theft of your property, so you are born with that right. The right to life is one that should be respected in most cases. For cases where it should not, refer to my second point.

I describe behaving like an animal when you are doing morally and legally wrong things without any remorse. I mean a murderer can realize that what he did was wrong, and could be integrated into society. Serial killers, rapists, paedophiles and child-killers should not in my opinion. I mean if you accidentally run over a child, you should be tried as a murderer, but if you kill a child with a clear intent on murdering it, you do not deserve to live. For specified crimes, I believe that when there is evidence beyond doubt that they are guilty of said crime, they should be put down. I mean, when a dog attacks and hurts a man, it gets put down. Some humans should be tretaed the same or worse.

I would keep freedom of religion, put in a clause where you can get stripped of your right to live and legalize slavery again, but for criminals only. Slave labor has proven through history that you can accomplish large scale tasks like construction, minning etc. with free manual labor. I mean you only need to feed them and keep them in working condition. Repay the damage done to society through hard work. I would abolish the entire democratic system. You would have a right to protest the government decisions, but not change it through voting, said government should be technocratic. The right to education should stay. Also decadent behavior should be banned or extremely frowned upon by society. I can expand on that if you want.

[mattsmith48]

Alright, good clarification. Don't agree with you just yet, though :)

What do you not agree with?

A distinction I want to make:
Does my right to basic needs mean that I have a claim to someone elses property if it is necessary for my survival?

No because you are taking the away the basic needs of that someone else, also stealing is illegal

Or do I have a right to try and acquire my basic needs through work and free trade?

It is immoral to make someone work so they can meet their basic needs they need to survive.

[PlasmaHam]

No because you are taking the away the basic needs of that someone else, also stealing is illegal
So, you are attempting to argue that people who are successful and have earned enough to get beyond their needs are thefts from those who can't. Thus we must steal, no wait, "redistribute" goods from people who've earned them and give them to people who haven't.

I'm a bit skeptical here. I don't typically make it a life policy to follow the ideological propaganda that cost many tens of millions of people their life over the last century. Placing the word "democratic" in front doesn't change what it is.



It is immoral to make someone work so they can meet their basic needs they need to survive.Is it moral to involuntarily take away the works of one man's labor to give to another?

[mattsmith48]

So, you are attempting to argue that people who are successful and have earned enough to get beyond their needs are thefts from those who can't. Thus we must steal, no wait, "redistribute" goods from people who've earned them and give them to people who haven't.

I never said people who make more money are thefts, well some are but that's an entirely different discussion. It is a moral duty as human being to make sure no one dies because just because they can't meet their basic needs.

I'm a bit skeptical here. I don't typically make it a life policy to follow the ideological propaganda that cost many tens of millions of people their life over the last century. Placing the word "democratic" in front doesn't change what it is.

Because it is so much better to have money and profit run everything and let people die because they can't afford to stay alive, you know just like Jesus said.

This is not about political ideologies, this is about caring about other humans

Is it moral to involuntarily take away the works of one man's labor to give to another?

You are gonna have to be more precise here

[Music Lover]

What do you not agree with?

I do not have a right to any work or property of others without their consent, even if I desperately need it for survival.

No because you are taking the away the basic needs of that someone else, also stealing is illegal

If said person doesn't need their property, is it moral to steal in order to survive?

It is immoral to make someone work so they can meet their basic needs they need to survive.

Are you saying nature is immoral? Nature makes us work to sustain ourselves.

If you are a doctor and there is a patient who needs your treatment to live, is it moral for him to force you to work to save his life?

I never said people who make more money are thefts, well some are but that's an entirely different discussion. It is a moral duty as human being to make sure no one dies because just because they can't meet their basic needs.

If someone doesn't do their moral duty, should they be compelled by force to do so?

Because it is so much better to have money and profit run everything and let people die because they can't afford to stay alive, you know just like Jesus said.

Did Jesus advise the poor to take from the rich by force to solve this problem?
Did Jesus advise to elect a government to take from the rich by force to solve this problem?

This is not about political ideologies, this is about caring about other humans

Not sure what you are trying to say here. I agree that caring about others is good.

But once you go from caring about other people to advocating for a state that does the legwork, it IS de facto about political ideology.

You are gonna have to be more precise here

See my doctor example.

You could also do this with farmers, who grow food on their own land.
Is it right for a poor man to take the farmer's crops by force so he can live?
Is it right for the government to take the farmer's crops by force and give to the poor man so he can live?

First point: technically, yes. Murder is illegal, so is damage or theft of your property, so you are born with that right.

Does my right to my life and property come from the law, or am I born with them regardless of what the law says?

The right to life is one that should be respected in most cases. For cases where it should not, refer to my second point.

I describe behaving like an animal when you are doing morally and legally wrong things without any remorse. I mean a murderer can realize that what he did was wrong, and could be integrated into society. Serial killers, rapists, paedophiles and child-killers should not in my opinion. I mean if you accidentally run over a child, you should be tried as a murderer, but if you kill a child with a clear intent on murdering it, you do not deserve to live. For specified crimes, I believe that when there is evidence beyond doubt that they are guilty of said crime, they should be put down. I mean, when a dog attacks and hurts a man, it gets put down. Some humans should be tretaed the same or worse.

Understandable. And I agree that this is just.

I would keep freedom of religion,

I agree with respect to everyone having the right to believe what they believe.

I disagree with having the right to practice what they want to. If the practice of your religion violates other peoples' rights, that part of course shouldn't be a right.

Incidentally, all of that (and much more) properly fits under the umbrella of the right of freedom.

put in a clause where you can get stripped of your right to live and legalize slavery again, but for criminals only. Slave labor has proven through history that you can accomplish large scale tasks like construction, minning etc. with free manual labor. I mean you only need to feed them and keep them in working condition. Repay the damage done to society through hard work.

Interesting. I have had similar thoughts in the past and it is not a bad idea even. (I disagree with stripping the right to live on minor offences though)

Do you think that a criminal who has gone through such a system for a minor offence should be set free after the damage done has been repaid?

I would abolish the entire democratic system. You would have a right to protest the government decisions, but not change it through voting, said government should be technocratic.

Who would decide who are the experts?

The right to education should stay.

What are the limitations on the right to education in your opinion?

Also decadent behavior should be banned or extremely frowned upon by society. I can expand on that if you want.

Go ahead. Who should decide what is decadent behaviour and what is not?

[mattsmith48]

I do not have a right to any work or property of others without their consent, even if I desperately need it for survival.

Never said you had that right.

If said person doesn't need their property, is it moral to steal in order to survive?

No because it is still stealing.

Are you saying nature is immoral? Nature makes us work to sustain ourselves.

In a way I guess you could say that.

If you are a doctor and there is a patient who needs your treatment to live, is it moral for him to force you to work to save his life?

Yes because thats their job and they every doctors are obligated to treat every patient who want to receive a treatment.

If someone doesn't do their moral duty, should they be compelled by force to do so?

Why do you mean by that?

Did Jesus advise the poor to take from the rich by force to solve this problem?
Did Jesus advise to elect a government to take from the rich by force to solve this problem?

No monarchies or dictatorship would have ever allowed this from any religion, that's why most of the quotes from Jesus on this subject is about rich voluntarily giving to the poor and then in exchange they could get into heaven.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. I agree that caring about others is good.

But once you go from caring about other people to advocating for a state that does the legwork, it IS de facto about political ideology.

Not wanting people to die because they can't afford to live, so giving everyone the right to their basic needs is not a political ideology.

See my doctor example.

What does your doctor example have to do with this?

You could also do this with farmers, who grow food on their own land.
Is it right for a poor man to take the farmer's crops by force so he can live?
Is it right for the government to take the farmer's crops by force and give to the poor man so he can live?

Thats why we need a basic income so every can buy it.

[Spooky_Eli]

You are gonna have to be more precise here

Is it moral to involuntarily take away the works of one man's labor to give to another?=

is it morally justified to take without consent, the beneficial result of one man's job and then give that to another

[Stronk Serb]

Does my right to my life and property come from the law, or am I born with them regardless of what the law says?



Understandable. And I agree that this is just.



I agree with respect to everyone having the right to believe what they believe.

I disagree with having the right to practice what they want to. If the practice of your religion violates other peoples' rights, that part of course shouldn't be a right.

Incidentally, all of that (and much more) properly fits under the umbrella of the right of freedom.



Interesting. I have had similar thoughts in the past and it is not a bad idea even. (I disagree with stripping the right to live on minor offences though)

Do you think that a criminal who has gone through such a system for a minor offence should be set free after the damage done has been repaid?



Who would decide who are the experts?



What are the limitations on the right to education in your opinion?



Go ahead. Who should decide what is decadent behaviour and what is not?

First point: Due to the legality of the death penalty, every man not proven guilty to death by a court of law retains his life, so techincally it is a right to live. For property, no matter what you did, your property shall not be infringed.

Also I agree with practicing religion. Some barbaric oractices ought to be banned.

I would not 'strip' the right to livw for minor offences. Rape, child molestation, childkilling and multiple accounts of murder warrant execution by hanging.

Criminals who got locked up for minor offences like for example damage to public property should be set free after they served their time and their slave labor has repaid the damage done. Embezzlers of public funds will slave for many years, so it is a good detterent for that.

There should be permanent and temporary ministries or departments. Each ministry/department's head will be determined by the people who are suited for that job. For example, officers are a good choice for the department of defence, be retired or not. Professors, teachers or counsellors are a good choice for education, bankers and economists for finances...

The experts of each individual field will convene and decide. I know it is sort of like a cast system, but people are like sheep.

In Serbia first two levels of education are free, then there are admission exams for university and there are quotas of points for students who pay for their education themselves (lower-scoring) and those whose education is financed by the state (higher-scoring).

Decadent behavior can be caracterized as making a member or group in society unproductive, parasitic, criminal. For example I would ban music that glorifies treating of men or women as sexual objects, promoting consumption of illegal substances, promoting criminal acts, behavior seen as far from normal... I mostly refer to marches which turn out to be bash fests. I would be blind to the political spectrum. Both the left and the right will be clobbered for promoting or partaking in violence. Kill/punch Nazis slogans would be equally punishable like slogans demanding the same for minorities etc.

[mattsmith48]

Is it moral to involuntarily take away the works of one man's labor to give to another?=

is it morally justified to take without consent, the beneficial result of one man's job and then give that to another

If you mean stealing the answer is no

[Spooky_Eli]

If you mean stealing the answer is nohow hard is it to understand, to take from one and then give that to another, and yes kind of stealing but not quite

[mattsmith48]

how hard is it to understand, to take from one and then give that to another, and yes kind of stealing but not quite

I guess you are just bad at explaining it

[Music Lover]

Never said you had that right.

You did in the case of the doctor.

No because it is still stealing.

Okay, good that we agree on this :)

In a way I guess you could say that.

You should re-evaluate your definition of moral then :)

Morality has to do with choice. Nature doesn't have a choice. It isn't immoral for a hurricane to kill thousands, because the hurricane didn't choose its path.

Yes because thats their job and they every doctors are obligated to treat every patient who want to receive a treatment.

So because treating patients is a doctor's job, it is alright to enslave them? (Force to work = slavery)

Why do you mean by that?

That if someon doesn't voluntarily help someone, should they be forced to do so by government force.

No monarchies or dictatorship would have ever allowed this from any religion, that's why most of the quotes from Jesus on this subject is about rich voluntarily giving to the poor and then in exchange they could get into heaven.

Actually this isn't what Christianity is about, but I digress...

My point was that Jesus didn't advocate for state socialism, but for private charity.

Not wanting people to die because they can't afford to live, so giving everyone the right to their basic needs is not a political ideology.

1. I don't want people to die either.
2. I think it is a good idea to help people in need if you can.
3. I think it is immoral to acquire the help for yourself or others by the use of force infringing on someone's freedom, property or life. It doesn't matter if this force is your own or the government's.

Want to give people food and shelter to survive? Go ahead, if you are rich enough to do so.

Want to force others to do so too? You end up violating their rights.

You are correct in saying that wanting to give people access to necessary resources for survival IS NOT politics de facto.
But when you want to use governmental power to tax others and do the charity for you... THEN it is politics.

Clarification: Do you want the state to run this or do you advocate for 100% privatised charity?

What does your doctor example have to do with this?

Everything.

You cannot oppose slavery and at the same time hold that someone has a right to force a doctor to work.

You have a contradiction in your view.

Thats why we need a basic income so every can buy it.

Where does the basic income come from? Who'se property do you advocate taking by force to fund this?
I thought you opposed stealing to save someone's life?

Also:
You said it is immoral to force someone to work to acquire their basic needs for survival.
Is it also immoral to force someone to work to acquire someone elses basic needs for survival?

Do you think every person in the world has a right to basic needs without putting in any work of their own?

[Snowfox]

Music Lover and mattsmith48 has anyoneone of you ever heard "Any port in a storm"

In situation of great distress like distress signal everyone who has means to help has to help. financial matters can be settled afterwards.
Some freedoms are essentially more important than other. Like right to life is more important than right to property.

[mattsmith48]

So because treating patients is a doctor's job, it is alright to enslave them? (Force to work = slavery)

It is not enslavement, no one forced them to become doctors, they signed up to do this job knowing they have to treat anyone who wants to no matter what.


That if someon doesn't voluntarily help someone, should they be forced to do so by government force.

The government does not force them to help anyone, unless its their job and they are required by the law to help people e.g. doctors.

Actually this isn't what Christianity is about, but I digress...

My point was that Jesus didn't advocate for state socialism, but for private charity.

And?


1. I don't want people to die either.
2. I think it is a good idea to help people in need if you can.
3. I think it is immoral to acquire the help for yourself or others by the use of force infringing on someone's freedom, property or life. It doesn't matter if this force is your own or the government's.

Want to give people food and shelter to survive? Go ahead, if you are rich enough to do so.

Want to force others to do so too? You end up violating their rights.

You are correct in saying that wanting to give people access to necessary resources for survival IS NOT politics de facto.
But when you want to use governmental power to tax others and do the charity for you... THEN it is politics.

Clarification: Do you want the state to run this or do you advocate for 100% privatised charity?

I think you already know the answer is state run. It should be clear by now that voluntary charity is not enough.

Where does the basic income come from? Who'se property do you advocate taking by force to fund this?
I thought you opposed stealing to save someone's life?

Also:
You said it is immoral to force someone to work to acquire their basic needs for survival.
Is it also immoral to force someone to work to acquire someone elses basic needs for survival?

Well a guaranteed basic income is an amount of money the government give to all its citizens unconditionally, the money to pay this comes from various places, from government programs replaced by the basic income, to the money saved in health care used to treat health problems related to the stress money can bring to people, to a slight raise in taxes. It is a small price to pay to stop people from dying because they can't afford to live and for eliminating poverty.

Do you think every person in the world has a right to basic needs without putting in any work of their own?

Who the fuck would answer no to that?

[Music Lover]

Music Lover and mattsmith48 has anyoneone of you ever heard "Any port in a storm"

A new phrase for me.

In situation of great distress like distress signal everyone who has means to help has to help. financial matters can be settled afterwards.
Some freedoms are essentially more important than other. Like right to life is more important than right to property.

Emergencies and normal life circumstances should be handled separately. I agree that any decent person would help someone in an emergency if they were capable of doing so.

You got me thinking though... If I were in a crisis that required me to steal someone's car to save my life, I would probably do so for survival.
But right after the danger on my life has ended, I would do whatever it takes to:
1. Give the car back
2. Pay for any damage I caused and fill the tank
3. Offer compensation for inconvenience. If it was a businessperson who missed a meeting that cost him 10000$ in missed earnings, I would take that on as debt.

Now if we are NOT in an emergency of urgent life-threatening conditions, but rather in normal life, I would rather slowly die of starvation than steal something of someone elses (or have the government steal it for me). And I fully expect anyone else to choose the same course of action.

Stealing a loaf of bread to feed yourself is wrong.

It is not enslavement, no one forced them to become doctors, they signed up to do this job knowing they have to treat anyone who wants to no matter what.

So are you saying it is impossible to become a doctor without indentured servitude for anyone?
Are you saying after you graduate, everyone who wants to has a claim on your work and you have no say in it?
On what basis do you make this claim?

The government does not force them to help anyone, unless its their job and they are required by the law to help people e.g. doctors.

Are there any professions you think shouldn't be forced to work?

And for your information, slavery does not have in its definition a disclaimer "It isn't slavery if it is your job your are forced to do"

And?

That's it. No and.

I think you already know the answer is state run. It should be clear by now that voluntary charity is not enough.

So in essence you are saying: "Citizens of a state should be free, unless they don't help their fellow citizens enough." Correct or incorrect?

Well a guaranteed basic income is an amount of money the government give to all its citizens unconditionally, the money to pay this comes from various places, from government programs replaced by the basic income, to the money saved in health care used to treat health problems related to the stress money can bring to people, to a slight raise in taxes. It is a small price to pay to stop people from dying because they can't afford to live and for eliminating poverty.

The money has to come from somewhere. The government has no money. It can only take money by force or receive money by voluntary donations. Tax uses force to take it.

I previously asked you

If said person doesn't need their property, is it moral to steal in order to survive?

and you answered

No because it is still stealing.

Is it okay for the government to steal its citizens money to feed the other citizens?

Who the fuck would answer no to that?

Me the fuck :D

The reason: It is a ludicruos notion. If everybody followed that principle, there would be nothing to live on. Consuming more than you produce leads to destruction. It is a principle of destruction.

And by the way, apparently you do not even follow that principle consistently. You seem to exclude doctors. They in your opinion should be forced to work and cannot take part in the philosophy of a right to fruits of labour without putting in the labour.

Try listening to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-T0ey0IKDA
If you liked it, I suggest you read the whole book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It will get you thinking. A lot :)

[mattsmith48]

So are you saying it is impossible to become a doctor without indentured servitude for anyone?
Are you saying after you graduate, everyone who wants to has a claim on your work and you have no say in it?
On what basis do you make this claim?

Doctors are forced by the law to treat anyone who needs it and wants to be treated without exceptions. And also it is their job

Are there any professions you think shouldn't be forced to work?

If you sign up to do a job, you have to do the job you signed up for. If you don't want to do it pick another job.

And for your information, slavery does not have in its definition a disclaimer "It isn't slavery if it is your job your are forced to do"

It is not slavery if you voluntarily signed up to do the job.


So in essence you are saying: "Citizens of a state should be free, unless they don't help their fellow citizens enough." Correct or incorrect?

Where did I say that?

The money has to come from somewhere. The government has no money. It can only take money by force or receive money by voluntary donations. Tax uses force to take it.


I previously asked you

and you answered


Is it okay for the government to steal its citizens money to feed the other citizens?

Taxes is not stealing, as a society we agreed to give part of what we earned to the government in exchange of getting free services.

Me the fuck :D

The eason: It is a ludicruos notion. If everybody followed that principle, there would be nothing to live on. Consuming more than you produce leads to destruction. It is a principle of destruction.

And by the way, apparently you do not even follow that principle consistently. You seem to exclude doctors. They in your opinion should be forced to work and cannot take part in the philosophy of a right to fruits of labour without putting in the labour.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

[Music Lover]

Doctors are forced by the law to treat anyone who needs it and wants to be treated without exceptions. And also it is their job

And I am saying it is wrong for such a clause to be in law.

If someone has made a contract with an employer, it is proper to be held to that contract.

If you sign up to do a job, you have to do the job you signed up for. If you don't want to do it pick another job.

I agree that you should follow voluntarily made contracts.

Should sole practicioners who are self-employed be also forced to treat whoever comes to their practice?

It is not slavery if you voluntarily signed up to do the job.

Of course not. But you explicitly said that it is okay to force them because they are a doctor.

Where did I say that?

When you said that voluntary charity is not enough.

If it is not voluntary, the only other alternative is force. Citizens compelled by their government are not free.

Taxes is not stealing, as a society we agreed to give part of what we earned to the government in exchange of getting free services.

This is a smokescreen argument.

The reality is that it is forced on the minority by the majority. The minority did not consent.

You cannot consent for other people, only yourself. I haven't consented and know many people who haven't. Taxes are forced on us.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

You said everyone has a right to basic needs without putting in any work of their own.

I took it to its logical conclusion, which you apparently don't agree with. So I am really doubting that you mean what you say.

If everyone demanded to live without working, everyone would die pretty quick. All wealth (food, shelter, health and luxuries) has to be produced before it can be used for survival or enhancing life.

If I misunderstood what you meant by saying "Who the fuck would answer no to that?" then please explain how you would apply that principle.

[mattsmith48]

And I am saying it is wrong for such a clause to be in law.
It is wrong to prevent doctors from decide who dies and who gets to lives?



When you said that voluntary charity is not enough.

If it is not voluntary, the only other alternative is force. Citizens compelled by their government are not free.

I also said as a society we agree we need to pay taxes so the government can pay for some services we need.

This is a smokescreen argument.

The reality is that it is forced on the minority by the majority. The minority did not consent.

You cannot consent for other people, only yourself. I haven't consented and know many people who haven't. Taxes are forced on us.

If by majority you mean 50% plus 1, then yes you can, that's how a real democracy work.

You said everyone has a right to basic needs without putting in any work of their own.

I took it to its logical conclusion, which you apparently don't agree with. So I am really doubting that you mean what you say.

If everyone demanded to live without working, everyone would die pretty quick. All wealth (food, shelter, health and luxuries) has to be produced before it can be used for survival or enhancing life.

If I misunderstood what you meant by saying "Who the fuck would answer no to that?" then please explain how you would apply that principle.

I said people shouldn't be required to work to meet their basic needs. Anything more then that you need to work for it. Humans are naturally greedy and how materialistic society is making it worst. Its in the name, basic income means you get what you need to meet your basic needs, anything more then that you have to earn the money for.

Your little theory would work, if it were still the 19th century, but now with automation, and how our progress with technology and how fast it keeps improving, if we don't want to or can't do a job we'll just have machines do it for us. They are more productive and cheaper anyway and that's the reason people are constantly losing their job to automation and why we need a guaranteed basic income

[Abyssal Echo]

Here in the U.S. we have Constitutional rights which were agreed on by our founding fathers and the bill of rights which was created due to the civil rights movement during the 1960s.

[Merk]

I just found this discussion, I have been very distracted by #2A and life. I will start here

Here in the U.S. we have Constitutional rights which were agreed on by our founding fathers and the bill of rights which was created due to the civil rights movement during the 1960s.
The Bill of Rights was created in 1789 shortly after the founding of America.

The original Civil rights movement was during the 1860s, by the Republicans, both 13 amendment freeing slaves, as well as the 14th, granting African-Americans full citizenship, eg. To vote, speech, rights, both pushed and passed by Republicans, highly opposed by Democrats. The 1960s movement was only when the Democrats stopped filibustering the 1860s movement, only acknowledging the rights already established by the Republicans a century earlier.

This is my entry into this discussion. Hopes this helps some people understand the concept of the civil Rights movement a little more :)

[mattsmith48]

I just found this discussion, I have been very distracted by #2A and life. I will start here


The Bill of Rights was created in 1789 shortly after the founding of America.

The original Civil rights movement was during the 1860s, by the Republicans, both 13 amendment freeing slaves, as well as the 14th, granting African-Americans full citizenship, eg. To vote, speech, rights, both pushed and passed by Republicans, highly opposed by Democrats. The 1960s movement was only when the Democrats stopped filibustering the 1860s movement, only acknowledging the rights already established by the Republicans a century earlier.

This is my entry into this discussion. Hopes this helps some people understand the concept of the civil Rights movement a little more :)

Incredible how much things can change in 150 years

[Tim the Enchanter]

Incredible how much things can change in 150 years

You mean 100 years? Wouldnt 100 years have passed from 1860 to 1960 not 150? I mean I guess your point still stands but still you know.

[mattsmith48]

You mean 100 years? Wouldnt 100 years have passed from 1860 to 1960 not 150? I mean I guess your point still stands but still you know.

I was thinking more about how much things have change from the time the Republicans wanted to abolish slavery to what is happening now in that same party. Its not related to the discussion just wanted to point it out.

[Spooky_Eli]

I was thinking more about how much things have change from the time the Republicans wanted to abolish slavery to what is happening now in that same party. Its not related to the discussion just wanted to point it out.are you saying you think the republicans as it stands want slavery?

[Merk]

I got thee same impression from that statement... Do you think republicans want slavery, opression, rape, abuse, torture, all the things that democrats did to slaves and "minorities"?

The republicanparty was founded on opposing the tyranny of the president at the time, Andrew Jackson, one of the founders of the democrat party. Andrew owned 51 slave at the time of his death, and is believed to have owned over 300 during his life.

The African-American civil rights movement, to give black people equal rights, was started by and fought by Republicans.

13 ammendment was pushed by all of the republicans, and highly resisted by democrats, with only about 23% of them supporting it.
14th ammendment 94% of republicans supported it, no democrats supported it.
18th ammendment all republicans supported it, no democrats supported it.

Dont start spewing shit about "northern democrates" everyone knows its not true.

[ShineintheDark]

The republicanparty was founded on opposing the tyranny of the president at the time, Andrew Jackson, one of the founders of the democrat party. Andrew owned 51 slave at the time of his death, and is believed to have owned over 300 during his life.

The African-American civil rights movement, to give black people equal rights, was started by and fought by Republicans.

13 ammendment was pushed by all of the republicans, and highly resisted by democrats, with only about 23% of them supporting it.
14th ammendment 94% of republicans supported it, no democrats supported it.
18th ammendment all republicans supported it, no democrats supported it.

And yet the tables began to switch in the 60s under Kennedy and Johnson, whose administrations saw black people given extended rights in voting and housing among others whilst the Republicans began championing Southern states, steadily beginning their opposition to such laws. In all those cases the republicans backed those bills but that was not the case for long, pretty much switching places with the democrats by around the 80s.

Dont start spewing shit about "northern democrates" everyone knows its not true.
The North/South divide is real and has influences US politics for centuries. Northern politicians tended to support civil rights bills, southern ones tended to oppose them. This was true in the democrats who championed southern states during the civil war and reconstruction eras but also in southern republicans who also did not support many civil rights laws at the time. This was less a party issue as a voter base issue: white southern voters would never back pro-black legislation. Therefore, when the Republicans began their push to take the south from the democrats in the 50s and 60s (the Southern strategy), they took over the conservative white base whilst the democrats increased their hold in liberal, northern areas. Parties can and have greatly changed their values and ideals based on their voter bases so your tirade over what the parties stood for in the 1800s cannot really be used in a discussion about modern politics.