Human Rights

[Danoff]

Assuming the child won't die on its own anyway (are there any cases of a baby being born like this living to adulthood?) this is the same euthenasia we practice on any other vegetative state patient. It is the guardian speaking in the role of the patient, not a removal of their rights.

With children it isn't a matter of "what would they want" or even "what's in their best interest". They simply don't have all of the rights adults have. Parents can dictate what their children do even if it's against their wishes.

That being said we reserve the right to life for children who can't communicate or defend it.

Human beings have rights for several reasons - many of which are tied up in their capacity to understand and control their actions. When someone no longer has

AH HA!

What if someone goes crazy?? They lose many of their rights, why? Because they've lost the ability to understand and control their actions. Without properly functioning high level brain functions rights cease to exist - because the human being has no ability to respect the rights of others (as I described earlier with criminals).

We don't draw the line at the species level - we make distinctions based on each person's mental capacity. Most people have a functioning brain and can maintain righst. But as soon as someone's brain stops functioning, or functioning properly, we take those rights away. The lunatic is robbed of his freedom. The criminal (who has demonstrated that his brain is not functioning properly by violating someone else's rights) is also robbed of his freedom - as are the elderly when they are no longer mentally or physically capable of respecting the rights of others.

We lock them all up, rob them of their "god given" rights because they're uncapable mentally or physically of "earning" their rights by be capable of respecting the rights of others.

Speaking of which:

What if (because what ifs are fun) Terri's wishes were to be left on a feeding tube forever if necessary AND what if her husband did know that? Did he commit murder? Did he violate her rights? Or did she just lose her rights the moment she lost brain function and as her guardian he could do whatever he pleased?

No, he didn't commit murder, but he did violate her rights - the rights she had over her dead body while she was living.

If someone dies, their rights are not automatically null and void. They prescribe how they want their dead body to be treated and how they want their belongings appropriated. There isn't much different in the Schaivo case except that she wasn't "technically" dead, though there was no brain function. So if she had prescribed ahead of time that she wanted to be kept alive as long as humanly possible, he needed to do that as long as he was guardian - though he wasn't obligated to be her guardian. It wouldn't be murder, because she was really already gone, but it would be as though someone desecrated her dead body.

 

[niky]

What I meant was: You have the right to any wealth you accumulate by merit. You have the OPTION not to give it to your children, as long as you provide them the basics.

As for kids, they should have, basically, access to a certain quality of life. Once they're old enough to work, then it's all up to them what they make of themselves.

Theft isn't allowed, since property rights are enforced.

When I say you can't do things that would limit the competitiveness of others, that includes physical harm, forceful isolation (unless they're dangerously anti-social) or denial of entry into any workplace for any reason that doesn't directly affect work performance (if they're qualified, they're in... doesn't matter if they're black, white, muslim or jewish, etcetera).

This would also cover circulating untruths or unfounded rumors about the person, or causing unnecessary emotional harm (though that's a gray area) without reason.

 

[Danoff]

I've just finished reading a massive flamefest against a few surpeme court justices from ~40 years ago that significantly eroded our freedoms - so you'll have to pardon me if I seem a bit hostile in my responses (it's just the mood I'm in).

What I meant was: You have the right to any wealth you accumulate by merit.

That's not what the following quote means when referring to children.

In other words... the right to the same education, childhood and social development as all other human beings

That means that human beings do not have a right to offer their children anything better than any other child gets - which is an inherent restriction on your wealth and reduces the benefits all children receieve to the lowest possible common denominator, dooming them all to a childhood of poverty.

You have the OPTION not to give it to your children, as long as you provide them the basics.

👍

As for kids, they should have, basically, access to a certain quality of life. Once they're old enough to work, then it's all up to them what they make of themselves.

Perhaps. But these are not requirements on society, but on parents. If a parent chooses to have a child they have inherently entered into a contract with that child to provide it certain requirements during childhood including basic food, education, and clothing.

When I say you can't do things that would limit the competitiveness of others, that includes physical harm, forceful isolation (unless they're dangerously anti-social) or denial of entry into any workplace for any reason that doesn't directly affect work performance (if they're qualified, they're in... doesn't matter if they're black, white, muslim or jewish, etcetera).

This conflicts with your earlier statement:

What I meant was: You have the right to any wealth you accumulate by merit.

If you have a right to any wealth that you accumulate - and the right to use that wealth or give it to whomever you choose in return for services. Then you inherently have a right to descriminate based on whatever reasons you choose when deciding who to give your wealth to. If, on the otherhand, you're required to be non-discriminatory with your wealth (which is not a good way to keep your money), then your rights to your wealth have been limited severely.

So which is it? Is it our property, or are we required - when giving our property to others (in return for services or for no reason) - to check with the state whether it's ok to give our property to that particular person?

 

[niky]

@danoff: Don't mind it when you're hostile... at least your hostility makes sense, unlike some other people...

Let me try to be clearer. Wealth is yours to give, or not to give. You can reward anyone you want with your wealth, what you can't do is use wealth or influence to deprive others of their basic needs or requirements.

It's a social contract that you have to provide certain things to your kids, given. It's up to you if you want to go beyond what society demands. Society, today, for example, demands that you give your kids at the very least a stable home life and public school education. If you want to, you can put your kids up in a mansion and send them to an exclusive school.

But any child, regardless of social class, should at least receive that public school education, and it should be the best possible education given budget limitations.

Obviously, parents are going to want to give their kids an advantage, they can do this if they want. But I think it's ridiculous for law to require that the parents do any more than the minimal. Actually... the laws are like that, already. Children are guaranteed a certain amount form inheritance, but the parents are not required to turn over all their assets to their kids.

You've got me on freedom of wealth versus equal opportunity. As you say, freedom of wealth can be used to discriminate in terms of who you pay for services. I was thinking that you shouldn't limit anyone's chances. If you don't want to use them, fine... but don't prevent them from seeking opportunities elsewhere.

It's probably not feasible to outline what will or will not cause harm to other humans, because there are quite a number of things we do that do cause harm to someone else, whether we like it or not. That's why I don't want to touch the religious rights question at all... because the area is so nebulous.

My ideas of rights are probably pretty imperfect, and I can imagine them being abused almost to the same extent that current legal strictures are.

But that's life... we compete, and someone's bound to get the short end of the stick, no matter how level we make the playing field.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sorry this took so long, weekend and all.

What if someone goes crazy?? They lose many of their rights, why? Because they've lost the ability to understand and control their actions. Without properly functioning high level brain functions rights cease to exist - because the human being has no ability to respect the rights of others (as I described earlier with criminals).

We don't draw the line at the species level - we make distinctions based on each person's mental capacity. Most people have a functioning brain and can maintain righst. But as soon as someone's brain stops functioning, or functioning properly, we take those rights away. The lunatic is robbed of his freedom. The criminal (who has demonstrated that his brain is not functioning properly by violating someone else's rights) is also robbed of his freedom - as are the elderly when they are no longer mentally or physically capable of respecting the rights of others.

We lock them all up, rob them of their "god given" rights because they're uncapable mentally or physically of "earning" their rights by be capable of respecting the rights of others.

In teh case of insanity or criminal they still are granted rights. We have only put them in a place where they are unable to hurt others, but we are unable to waltz in and rape/kill/beat them as we please. We are granting them some rights. Do you feel that they are being unneccesarily granted these rights or is it because they understand the concept of those few rights?

In the death penalty an exception is made because we believe they have no chance of understanding those rights and will always be a danger to society. This of course brings about eth question of the mentally ill.

They are sent to a hospital and not a prison because they do not understand what they did. By the way I read your definition this is all criminals. Why make a difference between mentally ill and common criminals? Because criminals DO understand that they at least violated a law, and if faced with that same violation being done to them suddenly understand that the right is being violated.

Then if they show that they understand they violated someone's rights and they are apologetic shoudl we let them back out, no matter the crime?

Should we just use death sentences for all mentally ill patients? They can't, and won't understand rights. Just kill them now, they are no better than an animal, right?

I don't think this but it is how I read what you are saying. To me, by locking them up we are witholding many of their legal rights but are still granting them their inalienable right to life, just in a place to remove their ability to harm those who do not wish to violate the rights of others.

 

[Danoff]

In teh case of insanity or criminal they still are granted rights. We have only put them in a place where they are unable to hurt others, but we are unable to waltz in and rape/kill/beat them as we please. We are granting them some rights. Do you feel that they are being unneccesarily granted these rights or is it because they understand the concept of those few rights?

No, it isn't because they understand the concept of those rights, it's because the state has adopted a rule barring cruel and unusual punishment. This was done under the premise that cruel and unusual punishment is never just - which makes sense when you consider that the damage done by a particular crime is a subjective thing.

In the death penalty an exception is made because we believe they have no chance of understanding those rights and will always be a danger to society. This of course brings about eth question of the mentally ill.

The death penalty is about justice - not the potential for reform.

They are sent to a hospital and not a prison because they do not understand what they did. By the way I read your definition this is all criminals. Why make a difference between mentally ill and common criminals? Because criminals DO understand that they at least violated a law, and if faced with that same violation being done to them suddenly understand that the right is being violated.

You put your finger directly on the difference between the mentally ill and common criminals. One understands that they did something wrong, the other does not. That also prescribes the difference between locking up criminals (justice) vs. locking up the mentally ill (protection).

Then if they show that they understand they violated someone's rights and they are apologetic shoudl we let them back out, no matter the crime?

Again, we're talking justice here. There is a penalty for violating someone's rights, no matter how remorseful you are. We do let people out when they've served their penalty and maybe we give them breaks if they show that they're capable of respecting the rights of others. But punishment is still necessary.

Should we just use death sentences for all mentally ill patients? They can't, and won't understand rights. Just kill them now, they are no better than an animal, right?

We don't punish the mentally ill for violating rights, we remove (some of) their rights to protect ourselves (and them) from their own lack of understanding. Just like you don't shoot a rabbid dog to punish it, but rather to protect yourself from it. That being said, we still extend the cruel and unsual punishment protection to them.

The mentally ill are an odd case because they understand some things but not others (and it varies by case). It would be difficult to judge which rights they should get and which they should not. The same is generally true of criminals, so we restrict ourselves to only taking away their freedom, the right to vote, the right to purchase firearms, etc.

But analyzing who gets what rights taken away when is all a matter of justice... and punishments aren't typically decidable along philosphical lines. For that reason, I'm not particularly interested in figuring out which punishments are adequate and when. I'm not interested in what's a fair (just) way to treat someone who has shoplifted. I'm more interested in the philosphical underpinnings.

And the basics here are undeniable. We strip people of their rights when they demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to respect the rights of others.


Edit: Let me clarify something.

There's the ends, the means, and the justification. The ends don't justify the means and the means don't justify the ends. The justification is in the beginning. The ends desired are totally separate from the justification. Perhaps you want to lock someone up to protect yourself or others from that person. But that doesn't justify doing it. The justification is in the violation of or demonstrated inability to respect someone else's rights.

In some cases the ends desired is punishment. In other cases, protection. In other cases, reform. But the justification lies with none of those objectives.

 

[FoolKiller]

Wow you went into a long defense there. I was honestly just trying to clarify when you said this:

The criminal (who has demonstrated that his brain is not functioning properly by violating someone else's rights) is also robbed of his freedom -

It made it seem as if you were defining criminal in the same way I would mentally ill.

I don't see it as a brain malfunction to be criminal. Especially considering that all current tests show most criminal brains to work like everyone elses. I believe it is something more than physical that causes them to decide that the guilt and possibility of punishment is worth the reward of crime. Guilt here being used to define how they can accept that their actions violate another person's rights.

It is as if they do not care, or believe their reasoning is just. Because of their situation in life they feel that violating the rights of others is okay. Sometimes they might have Robin Hood complex. Then some will even do it just for fun. Whatever the case may be the malfunction is on a psychological, and not a physiological, level. This is something that can many times be reformed.

When the problem is based on a physical level where the brain itself does not work properly then it becomes mental illness. This can possibly be controlled through medication but is sometimes untreatable. In this case their right to freedom will never be granted.

Back to the rights discussion:

What is it that you have against granting rights to the entire species? What would it change? Sure there would be exceptions for those who show disregard or lack of understanding, such as criminals or children or the mentally ill, but for those who are not the exception everything is fine.

If we determine who did and didn't have rights in the way that you say then it goes from a case by case basis to determine if they understand rights. And I said before that it is hard to explain but I can feel it when it is wrong. According to you that was not properly understanding rights. So should I be denied my rights? Can someone come and take my car? My life? Or do they have to show more evidence that I don't understand rights?


I'm not saying to be a socialist about it. For instance, a person who is alive (by whatever definition you choose) has a right to life becasue no other living person has a more valuable life and the right to kill them. People have to earn their property rights as I described earlier. (How big of a capitalist does it make me when I can describe property rights before right to life?) But if a person is human and has met whatever criteria has to be met to have that right then they have it until they show disregard for the rights of others. Of course that is a loose definition that would put most politicians in jail. 💡

Anyway, before I confuse myself I'll get back to work.

 

[Danoff]

Wow you went into a long defense there. I was honestly just trying to clarify when you said this:

It made it seem as if you were defining criminal in the same way I would mentally ill.

I don't see it as a brain malfunction to be criminal.... Whatever the case may be the malfunction is on a psychological...

Sounds like a malfunctioning brain to me.

What is it that you have against granting rights to the entire species? What would it change? Sure there would be exceptions for those who show disregard or lack of understanding, such as criminals or children or the mentally ill, but for those who are not the exception everything is fine.

Because granting rights to the entire species is (as I have explained previously) arbitrary. It isn't defensible. Why should one species have rights and others not? There must be a different reason we have rights, or we should not have them. There is, however, and it is self-awareness.

If we determine who did and didn't have rights in the way that you say then it goes from a case by case basis to determine if they understand rights. And I said before that it is hard to explain but I can feel it when it is wrong. According to you that was not properly understanding rights. So should I be denied my rights? Can someone come and take my car? My life? Or do they have to show more evidence that I don't understand rights?

You're getting hung up on this "understanding" business. The only reason I mention that understanding rights is important is because if you don't understand the rights of others you can't observe them. But you, being a healthy human adult, have to demonstrate that you don't, won't, or can't respect the rights of others before yours need to be taken away from you.

Being capable (this is a very basic capability) of understanding what you can and cannot dois necessary before you can avoid breaking the rules.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sounds like a malfunctioning brain to me.

Yeah, upon rereading my comment I think I just confused myself there.

Because granting rights to the entire species is (as I have explained previously) arbitrary. It isn't defensible. Why should one species have rights and others not? There must be a different reason we have rights, or we should not have them. There is, however, and it is self-awareness.

Humans, as a rule, are a self-aware species. We are talking about exceptions to the rule, things found in science all the time. A species is not judged by mutations, deformities, or malfunctions. These occur in a small percentage of a population.

Being capable (this is a very basic capability) of understanding what you can and cannot dois necessary before you can avoid breaking the rules.

There are those who, due to a deformity/defect, never develop beyond a certain point and can't understand this. Is it up to their guardian as to how they will be treated?

 

[Danoff]

Humans, as a rule, are a self-aware species. We are talking about exceptions to the rule, things found in science all the time. A species is not judged by mutations, deformities, or malfunctions. These occur in a small percentage of a population.

The reason humans have rights is because they're self-aware. It follows then that if a human is not self-aware, it doesn't have rights. We don't have to judge the species at all, we can judge individuals.

There are those who, due to a deformity/defect, never develop beyond a certain point and can't understand this. Is it up to their guardian as to how they will be treated?

Yup.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yup.

How far are you willing to let that decision making go? Treatment could be what you would consider abuse on a healthy average adult.

 

[Danoff]

How far are you willing to let that decision making go? Treatment could be what you would consider abuse on a healthy average adult.

That's a matter of morality. I find some things to be morally reprehensible that I can't justify attempting to force others not to do. I suppose you're not going to be satisfied with just that as an answer though... so let me give you a few scenarios.

Terri Schaivo - was once fully self-aware and concious and so maintains rights after she enters a vegetative state and eventually dies. Those rights are limited - since she obviously can't make decisions for herself and can't expect others to provide for her. A guardian has to make those decisions - but just as a dead body is protected from certain kinds of abuse due to the fact that the person used to have rights when they were alive - so would Terri Schaivo be.

A person who is mentally ill from birth is probably still, at least to a very small degree, self-aware. Even severly mentally ill humans are more deserving of rights than most animals. A judge would have to determine (based on the degree of mental deficiency) which rights the mentally handicapped person would have. Obviously some of them will be well-enough to maintain freedom. Others will not. Some will be held accountable for their actions, others will not. It's a big range.

A person who is born into a vegetative state would have no rights whatsoever and would essentially be like a "pet" of the guardian - under complete ownership of the parents. This situation currenty (and would still) almost always result in the plug being pulled.

Criminals also retain some rights while losing others. The rights they retain are dependant upon their offense - some losing the right not to be robbed of their lives (though that doesn't necessarily mean they must be killed).

I don't think this view really differs from the way we treat people today. I think this provides a solid philosphical support for most of the laws we have in the US right now. I'm not claiming that it falls directly in line with every law, but I don't think it really changes anything.

So, are you on board?

 

[FoolKiller]

So, are you on board?

Most excellently explained. Nothing I can argue here.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, so the logical consequence of this is that fetuses don't have rights since they aren't self-aware.

What do you think? Are you pro-choice now?

 

[FoolKiller]

Ok, so the logical consequence of this is that fetuses don't have rights since they aren't self-aware.

What do you think? Are you pro-choice now?

I never said yes. At most you have stopped me from being able to argue the rights of a fetus issue with you.

That's a matter of morality. I find some things to be morally reprehensible that I can't justify attempting to force others not to do.

As you said , it is a matter of morality for me. Whether you want to consider it wrong for me to think that way or not is up to you. The fact is that I know the law, I understand the law and why abortion is legal. That doesn't mean I agree. Because of this understanding you will never find me at a protest or my name on a petition to change the law.

I have long accepted the legality standpoint of abortion, as I have many other things that I don't agree with. I also commonly debate with myself over the mother's right to her body and the many what if scenarios such as rape or the mother's health. In the end, to me it is killing a developing human.

You can argue that the fetus (Latin for offspring) has no rights and I can even agree , but just as I think killing a mentally handicapped person who's brain is trapped in a newborn state is wrong, even if they don't deserve those rights by definition, I think the same about killing a fetus.

If you find it sad to find that I can base an opinion on something like this I apologize. You should know that I have come a long way considering in high school (10 years ago) I would blaze into a debate with Bible quotes and religious reasoning. I see the error in that now but without using religion I still convince myself in my own mind that there is something wrong with it.

EDIT: What I am trying to say is that I didn't come to this decision lightly, nor will my opinion change in a week's worth of online debate.


And watching that From Within the Womb special on National Geographic Channel with my wife this weekend didn't help matters any either.

 

[Danoff]

I never said yes. At most you have stopped me from being able to argue the rights of a fetus issue with you.

That's an important step.

As you said , it is a matter of morality for me. Whether you want to consider it wrong for me to think that way or not is up to you. The fact is that I know the law, I understand the law and why abortion is legal. That doesn't mean I agree. Because of this understanding you will never find me at a protest or my name on a petition to change the law.

I'm a little lost here, you don't agree that it should be legal or you don't think it's moral? There is a difference.

I have long accepted the legality standpoint of abortion, as I have many other things that I don't agree with.

Ah, so you're pro-choice already?

I also commonly debate with myself over the mother's right to her body and the many what if scenarios such as rape or the mother's health. In the end, to me it is killing a developing human.

That's exactly what it is. I don't see how anyone (pro-choice or otherwise) could argue against that.

You can argue that the fetus (Latin for offspring) has no rights and I can even agree , but just as I think killing a mentally handicapped person who's brain is trapped in a newborn state is wrong, even if they don't deserve those rights by definition, I think the same about killing a fetus.

Ok, I think it's wrong to beat your dog - that doesn't mean I want it to be ilelgal (which I think it is). There are plenty of things I find morally reprehensible that I don't think I can justify stopping others from doing. That you feel this way about abortion shouldn't affect how you feel about the legality of abortion - which has to be arrived at via the kind of discussion we just had.

If you find it sad to find that I can base an opinion on something like this I apologize.

You can arrive at an unfavorable opinion of abortion by just about any means you want and I won't find it sad. But if you let that influence your position on whether it should be legal I'll find it sad that you don't see a distinction when it comes to the law.

You should know that I have come a long way considering in high school (10 years ago) I would blaze into a debate with Bible quotes and religious reasoning. I see the error in that now but without using religion I still convince myself in my own mind that there is something wrong with it.

Well then you have come a long way. 👍

EDIT: What I am trying to say is that I didn't come to this decision lightly, nor will my opinion change in a week's worth of online debate.

It's not about where you have the debate, or how long you have the debate, or even who you have the debate with. What's important is that you can internallly justify your position on the subject. If you can't, you should consider changing your mind.

 

[Swift]

You guys are seriously going at it. Why can't all the discussions on this board be this mature..?

 

[FoolKiller]

You guys are seriously going at it. Why can't all the discussions on this board be this mature..?

Because we are two mature people?

I know I have a true respect for danoff's intellect, even though I disagree with with him on certain issues. That allows the debate to move more like a chess game (point-counterpoint) than a wrestling match (name calling and one-uping). We aren't trying to prove that we are better or smarter than the other, which is what happens a lot of times on this board.

 

[Danoff]

We aren't trying to prove that we are better or smarter than the other, which is what happens a lot of times on this board.

Agreed. This conversation was about the issue , and I had a lot of fun with it. You brought up some excellent points and really challenged my phiosophy. It's a fine line, though, because usually debates get really heated when the people feel strongly about the issue.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Sorry upfront, I did not find the time to go through the previous posts yet, but this is bugging me at the moment.

Cowboys and Indians, the French story.

Currently it seems the French president is very much criticised for his communication and actions against the Roma population in his country.

Why Cowboys and Indians?

Cowboys here are the French politicians that use their money to get people out of their country and who "defend the French property".

Indians are the Roma that like to travel around, use the wide free space; the way they see fit at that moment.

It seems that the Cowboys that organised themselves around property and technology have a upper hand on the Indians that have always run around in the free space that was there for everyone. The Indians not claiming free space for themselves but sharing it with all the others seem to lose their rights that way.

What kind of Human Rights are at play here?

- The right to move: I call it that way, individuals should not be restricted in a prison, an area, a country, a continent, without a very good reason to restrict them.
- The right on property: To build, to work for the future, to let investments give return, every individual must be able to claim some property. I heard the inability to secure this is one of the most important reasons of lesser development in large parts of Africa.

In my conflict theory: the right on property and the right on free movement are both essential but seem to have practical implications on each other.

Also on this issue:


I believe the shock of the Nazi vision on this, made already some European legislation clear that there need to be places foreseen for people that want to travel freely = some free space for everyone.

However the traveling people should also take into account that they might influence the environment they choose to be in and indirectly the property of the people around that.

The case here presented:

I have the impression the government is not correct with trying to move people out of their country, certainly not in the communication that was done around it. Governments have allowed an unreasonable amount of property compared to the free space left.

However I have some first hand experience and there are plenty of issues that come with migrations. Some communes really are suffering from the numbers they have to mange, so a more equal spread over a country should be acceptable for both parties. But this on itself is a restriction!

 

[Ibonibo]

On the roma issue:

For Sarkosy is just to boost statistic, so that at least the right oriented people vote for him.
because those romas are Eu citizens they can come back to france as soon as they land in Rumania. And they given money for "temporary" leaving the country (they can make themselves a nice holiday in rumania and return).

So this whole action taken is infact useless.

But one problem persist : They occupy land that is not their own. It is either gouverment propriety (different from public space) or private. So the holder of this place can ban them from the territory legitmatly.
And these romas don't pay taxes (for propriety, which in France is high) like the most others citizens.
But all those expelled are in fact illegal immigrants. You have the right as Eu citizen to move freely in the Eu -> OK. But i've you want to live in an other EU country, you need to follow some administrative steps : registration in the city, pay taxes, rent or own a propriety.

The whole question is are carvans and mobile homes in fact homes. Judges said yes, so this resultzed in this legal action taken.

The action taken i find it utterly stupid (as they throw out tax money to fly them back), but i understand the problem. Just the matter of finding a better solution.

For me the human rights in here is hard to define. They make a difficult month for the people expelled, but those also made an illegal action.
As i said the action taken is dumb and just populist

 

[Danoff]

Property rights arise from labor. When someone has worked to create something, if you take that something for yourself against their will, you're retroactively forcing them to create it - which violates their right against force.

You can acquire natural resources by mixing your labor with unowned natural resources. The notion is called the homestead principle, and it's an extension of all property rights. So a problem arises when a group doesn't choose to mix labor with natural resources that they've occupied for a long time. They think that because they've occupied it, they have a right to use it forever. This is not a justifiable position. It's not how I arrive at property rights, and I see no way, logically, to arrive at that conclusion. Furthermore, I've heard no one attempt to justify that position via logic.

So here's the bottom line. Once you establish ownership of unowned natural resources by transforming those resources via labor - you can deny others access to those resources. No flags are needed, and no rights to trample other's property rights exist to be infringed.

 

[Keef]

What are Roma? Roman people? Vagabonds? Nomads?

 

[Ibonibo]

What are Roma? Roman people? Vagabonds? Nomads?

Yes also known as gypsys

 

[Vince_Fiero]

They think that because they've occupied it, they have a right to use it forever. This is not a justifiable position. It's not how I arrive at property rights, and I see no way, logically, to arrive at that conclusion. Furthermore, I've heard no one attempt to justify that position via logic.

So here's the bottom line. Once you establish ownership of unowned natural resources by transforming those resources via labor - you can deny others access to those resources. No flags are needed, and no rights to trample other's property rights exist to be infringed.

So if I understand correctly:

The work of putting up a fence = cowboys & French

gives you the right to stop people that have roamed the free space for ages, living with it in harmony
= Indians, have more trouble placing Roma in here.

The Roma only use the free space to put their mobile homes, they actually go from there to work as help in that region, I guess mostly as seasonal workers.

BTW: the flag thing was just to prove I´m not the only one having issues with that concept and as a funny note.

Strangely I come to a "Star Trek" principle of none intervention, which brought me to this in Wikipedia:

Adherents to the concept of a Westphalian system brought back to the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, in which, written in the peace of Westphalia, the major European countries met each other and agreed to respect the principle of territorial integrity.

I can not rid me of the feeling that some people (Cowboys) invented some right on property that they pushed in the direction they saw it.
The tradition of the others (Indians) did not fit in this, so became illegal.

Not clear how you can protect it, my fear is just that people will see more and more the Amazon forest as their property to create soya bean fields and thus completely erase (most has been done) the traditional way of living of the tribes in this forest.

I still feel that the Human rights of the Indians, Roma and Amazon forest tribes are completely ignored.
Under a too Western "Right of property", that is based on Western appreciation of land and completely ignores the appreciation of other groups using this land since ages, these groups will disappear since they do not have the same striking force .

 

[Danoff]

So if I understand correctly:

The work of putting up a fence = cowboys & French

gives you the right to stop people that have roamed the free space for ages, living with it in harmony
= Indians, have more trouble placing Roma in here.

Sortof. I think I'd pick at your fence example a bit but the principle stands. Yes, squatting on a piece of dirt - even if you do so for a long time - doesn't make it yours.

 

[Keef]

But the native Americans here in North America worked the land with farms, homes, villages, etc. They didn't build a fence but they didn't just throw a sleeping bad down in some white guy's back yard either. Comparing vagabonds to indians isn't a very good example. They're just there, taking up everyone else's space and sitting on their stuff.

They're more like illegal immigrants, eh?

 

[Danoff]

Some tribes had farms, homes and villages, and some were purely nomadic, packing up their teepees and following the buffalo - not working the land whatsoever.

 

[niky]

The settlers actually bought some of the land... Of course, with the natives not knowing its value, they got a bum deal.

I'd contest that hunter-gatherers who steward the land ARE putting labor into it. It's a resource that they utilize and harvest... merely leaving it in an 'undeveloped' state to ensure a continuous supply of resources. The question is how much of those tracts they're entitled to.

 

[Danoff]

I'd contest that hunter-gatherers who steward the land ARE putting labor into it.

Like what?