Human Rights

[Danoff]

Nobody stated that he should stop talking, just stop directing it at her.

Same thing. That's physical force controlling his actions.

But your point is valid, imagine in the bar there is a group of students singing "doubtful" songs. The man says to the owner of the bar, the woman can not understand me, make the students shut up, the bartender states this is a student bar, if you do not like it, though luck. End of story. A student throws up in front of you so you can not move without going through the mess, still the same? It is not your property and nobody violated your property, you can go through the mess whenever you want, nobody is stopping you. The bartender states vomit is part of the charm here, the cleaning man comes at 10h just before reopening.

Let's take it a step further. Let's say the owner set up traps all around the woman that would kill her if she moved and then told her the choice was hers. If his property (traps) destroys her property (body), that's an assault on his part and a violation of her property rights. To a lesser extent, so is putting vomit everywhere. She should be able to recoup property damages (not that there will be any) from whoever puts the vomit there (bartender could too). She needs to have the freedom to leave the premises without her property being destroyed.

If the bartender wants to cover himself from damages that his property may cause others (like the roof caving in, or the juke box electrocuting someone) he should be able to get them to sign a waiver before entering his property saying that they are aware that his roof may cave in. They wouldn't, of course, and he'd lose business. Which means the property owner chooses to put himself in a situation where he'd be liable if his roof caves in and takes appropriate steps to make sure that that doesn't happen.

No if people impose commitments on your property you have the right to take action to get justice.

Not sure exactly what you mean by this, but if you mean preventing them from leaving your property without giving up some of their own or destroying their own, then yes you're correct.

Is she forcing or does she have a right?

The only right she has is not to be forced. Others have that same right from her. You see the following conflict:

- She is being forced to listen to him
vs
- He is being forced not to talk to her

This is not the case. Here is the real scenario

- He is being forced not to talk to her
vs
- She is free to leave and go to another property where he is not allowed.

Still do not see the difference, there are only 2 rights:
1) Natural rights (mostly called Moral): what this thread is about, always exist
2) Legal rights, documented in law: that are collective regulations, written.
Both will support that you can have a contract between 2 parties, but both parties will have to agree to that contract, one can not impose a contract/ agreement to an other.

Property rights on publicly owned land: is either written in law, or signed by both parties or does not exist. I believe the latter.

Property rights on publicly owned land inherently belong to the owners - the public. What they choose to do with that land is their business.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

If his property (traps) destroys her property (body), that's an assault on his part and a violation of her property rights.

If I follow what I see in your line of thinking on the bar case then I can only come the next response: No it is not, he does not touch her property, she has the choice to stay put, if she moves and kills herself that is her choice.

The whole discussion is about "imposing commitments on property", I do believe we have a path to the truth there.

You stick with Physical is the only force, I'm still trying to find if that is true.
Some things make it hard to believe, and the point is to come to a right against torture, without judging the defender or the accused.

The only right she has is not to be forced. Others have that same right from her. You see the following conflict:

- She is being forced to listen to him
vs
- He is being forced not to talk to her

This is not the case. Here is the real scenario

- He is being forced not to talk to her
vs
- She is free to leave and go to another property where he is not allowed.

I believe this is the most interesting in the debate, where is the subjective?

She is being forced to listen to him => I still find this objective, since he is directing speech at her, his action directed at her property.
He is being forced not to talk to her => again this is not objective, she has a right to ask him to stop imposing things on her property, that is not stopping him, stopping would be an action if he would violate a judgement afterwards that would have asked him to stop. e.g. the bar tender judges the lady is right and asks the man to leave, he does not leave, only at that moment force comes in.
She is free to leave and go to another property where he is not allowed.=> this is not objective, he is free to go to talk to another woman, he is free to stop, the assumption there exists a property where he is not allowed is subjective, the assumption he is not breaching her property is subjective (you could measure the sound objectively).

That this is a real issue is supported by suicide after rape and harassment, people believe that it is not worth living in an unjust world.

So objectively I see:
* She is being forced to listen to him, she has a right not to be submitted to actions against her property (body) that impose commitments on her side.
* He is exercising his right to spread knowingly correct information, even if she does say stop, since she has the freedom to leave. He can follow her and try again as long as he does not corner her and lets her leave every time.

Objectively the rape case (we need to solve both at the same time):
* She is being forced to sex, she has a right not to be submitted to actions against her property (body) that impose commitments on her side.
* He is exercising his right to act without infringing the rights of an innocent other; he is only expressing his love even if she does say stop, as long as he lets her leave. He can follow her and try again as long as he does not corner her and lets her leave every time. If she is unconscious (delirious black out by the chase), he can still have sex with her (not even needed but: since protected sex does not do permanent damage and she has the freedom to take the morning after pill), unless she wants to go.

So without judgment on what "Property", "Freedom","commitment" and "innocent" is, in both cases without a right on her side, he can continue, nobody can stop him. With a right, she can ask for a judgment and will have to live with the judgment:
* she has to tolerate the behaviour or
* he will get a restraining order against her, he might get sentenced for unaccepted behaviour.

===================
Mea Culpa
I need to review the singing students:
* Everyone around them is being forced to listen to them, they have a right not to be submitted to actions against each property (body) that impose commitments on their side.
* The students are exercising their right to spread knowingly correct information, even if the others say stop, since they have the freedom to leave.
=> I accepted the bar tender and his judgment too easily, it could be a park, a street, anywhere....

N.B.: A rights conflict does not always have to lead to a tribunal court case or a UN nations armed intervention, some should be solved between people. Recognising the rights of all and finding compromises (respecting the rights of the others) for all is essential to protect your own rights. I do believe that part of seducing is to see between partners if you can find a common justice system that handles conflicts in the rights of both partners in an acceptable way.

 

[Sach]

It's irrelevant whether they are are not - socialism robbing them of their right to decide this.

So does our current society. Why get so paranoid then over an alternative?

Yes it would. Law != Rights. Please see the Human Rights thread as you have been directed.

Law = rights? Are you seriously stating this as a conclusive statement? What about the "laws" in countries run by tyrants?

Why? Because of force.

It's not force if it's designed by those very people. If my friend and I come up with an agreement to put 25% of our earnings back into our company and sign contracts to hold us to this, is it forced? If it is forced, yet we chose it, what exactly makes it bad? It's what we wanted.

Belief is irrelevant. They don't have that right. Please see the Human Rights thread as you have been directed.

It's not irrelevant in the slightest. That's the whole thing here, a matter of opinion that contractual agreement for citizens to contribute is a 'bad thing'. Laws are established based on a people's set of beliefs, etc. And the contract already exists: You want to be an American citizen? Fine, you WILL pay taxes.

In a system that doesn't breach human rights, this is not an issue. In a system that does, forced breach of human rights is required to preserve the system.

You mean like our current system? Why do so many people think they are currently free?

Stop paying taxes right now then, if it isn't already forced.

None of which is relevant to the fact that socialism requires human rights breaches, by force, to exist as it is defined.

So does our current system. People are forced to go to school, and pay taxes, and if you extend it further they are forced by many of the pillars of capitalist society to make certain choices that will dictate 40 or more hours of their lives every week.

We are not currently free.

It's pointless to worry about something like socialism taking away freedom, because:

a. we aren't free anyway
b. we already live in a socialist society, just not a totalitarian one

 

[Tornado]

Law = rights? Are you seriously stating this as a conclusive statement? What about the "laws" in countries run by tyrants?

He was saying the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_equals_sign

 

[Famine]

So does our current society. Why get so paranoid then over an alternative?

Why seek to repair what is broken with what is more broken?

Law = rights? Are you seriously stating this as a conclusive statement? What about the "laws" in countries run by tyrants?

"!=" is "not equal to". Your exact example of laws that breach human rights are the reason why laws != rights.

Incidentally, when I said "see" this thread, I meant "read" it.

It's not force if it's designed by those very people. If my friend and I come up with an agreement to put 25% of our earnings back into our company and sign contracts to hold us to this, is it forced? If it is forced, yet we chose it, what exactly makes it bad? It's what we wanted.

What contract does Socialism allow you to sign into?

It's not irrelevant in the slightest.

It is utterly irrelevant. Believing you have a right to something does not establish that right and grant it to you.

That's the whole thing here, a matter of opinion that contractual agreement for citizens to contribute is a 'bad thing'. Laws are established based on a people's set of beliefs, etc. And the contract already exists: You want to be an American citizen? Fine, you WILL pay taxes.

What contract?

You mean like our current system? Why do so many people think they are currently free?

Stop paying taxes right now then, if it isn't already forced.

I already pointed out that it is forced.

So does our current system. People are forced to go to school, and pay taxes, and if you extend it further they are forced by many of the pillars of capitalist society to make certain choices that will dictate 40 or more hours of their lives every week.

We are not currently free.

Smashing. So what?

I fear you miss the point somewhat.

It's pointless to worry about something like socialism taking away freedom, because:

a. we aren't free anyway
b. we already live in a socialist society, just not a totalitarian one

Yes. It needs fixing. Why seek to repair what is broken with what is more broken?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

So does our current society. Why get so paranoid then over an alternative?

Just to get you up to speed with this thread:

1) There are some rights that everyone has, you will feel unjust if others decided everything for you.
2) These rights, you must respect them for others as well; out of this you get that everyone is seen equal for those rights (sounds even like socialism).

As you see out the above, if the state can ask you to contribute to a socialistic system, you must also be able to ask the state (or anyone) for a contribution on what you decide. That can not be logic, so the state can not ask you for a contribution, you need to be able to choose.

The issue with socialism in the past has been the communistic examples, they decided everything on their people, also life and death. This is against rights.

Now you have a reason point if you say I agree with a socialist system and I sign an agreement with that community that I will be part of it, you have your obligations, they have theirs.
However this never gives them the right to decide for you, if you want to get out of the agreement (no more duties, no more benefits) you must be able to do so. I believe that the kibbutz was quite close to a system like this.

=========================
A little cultural note:

That's the whole thing here, a matter of opinion that contractual agreement for citizens to contribute is a 'bad thing'.

The Social Contract [edit]in the sense above[/edit] is something very French, mainly brought forward by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the opposite view is mainly based on Libertarianism some ideas also used in the French revolution (Liberte).

Edit on the social contract (wikipedia):

Hobbes advocated absolute monarchy, Locke advocated natural rights, and Rousseau advocated collective sovereignty in the name of "the general will".The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence....

We defend Locke a lot here: why? Since that view protects your individual rights, it guarantees you are not dominated.

 

[Danoff]

If I follow what I see in your line of thinking on the bar case then I can only come the next response: No it is not, he does not touch her property, she has the choice to stay put, if she moves and kills herself that is her choice.

I suddenly see the issue you're getting at.

No, putting someone in a situation where their choices are "do this or I'll harm you" is not freedom. Putting a gun to someone's head and offering them the choice of performing an action or else you'll pull the trigger does not transfer the choice to them. You're still the one who pulled the trigger, set the trap, etc.

The threat of force is force.

She is being forced to listen to him => I still find this objective, since he is directing speech at her, his action directed at her property.

She is freely exposing herself (her property) to an environment owned and controlled by someone else. This is freedom.

He is being forced not to talk to her => again this is not objective,

She does not have a right to force him not to talk. Even the bar owner cannot force him not to talk, the bar owner can only make him vacate the property.

Objectively the rape case (we need to solve both at the same time):
* She is being forced to sex, she has a right not to be submitted to actions against her property (body) that impose commitments on her side.
* He is exercising his right to act without infringing the rights of an innocent other;

That last part is the gotcha. He's initiating force against another individual. That's a rights violation.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

The threat of force is force.

Maybe indeed the "impose" in my right is more of the discussion point?

Do you impose something by:
* acting => can not be, you would not be able to act anymore
* acting with interaction => OK, I understand this one, but the issue is clear, you have your rights violated with the least someone next to you does. Practically inefficient as right (attention subjective statement from me).
* acting with direction => subjective, is the interaction directed or not
* acting with intend => this is a bit more practical, you are innocent in the action till someone asks you to stop (justice between the 2 people), this also confirms the interaction, still the whim of the other though.
* acting with effect => subjective, as I stated before, some might argue that rape with condom on an unconscious person has no effect.

Acting with intend: I believe this is more in line with the laws on harassment, it needs to be done at least twice. The first time it is innocent, you can say stop. It is the repeating that makes it harassment.

* there is an Objective Right that your property is not submitted to repeated actions (intend) of others that impose commitments on your side.

So he does not have to shut up, we agree on that, until someone (she) judges he should stop. A law would be a general judgment on rights conflicts, e.g. the act of rape is always against the rapist, by default he needs to stop, by law. On rights level rape remains just a conflict.
e.g. (exactly the same as the bar case for me)
* I have the right to act, e.g. go hunting in the forest.
* The other has the right to act, e.g. go running in the forest
There is a rights conflict, I will repeatedly shoot on moving things, where the other does not want to be shot at. The other has no right to choose where I hunt, but I have no right to choose where the other runs (even if I hold the gun). When we accidentally end up in the same forest, should I stop to hunt (see talk) because the other one just came running there?
P.S.: I do not hunt and do not run in real life.

In these judgments there remain many subjective parts:
* your property (only your body&mind are indisputable yours)
* repeated
* impose commitments

***********************

Socialism or capitalism what is the difference?

Take socialism as a starting point: Capitalism would be an individual initiative with property to create personal wealth, that would be objected by socialism, since the means of production would be used for personal wealth. So socialism excludes capitalism, so pure socialism is against rights, your right to be capitalist.

Take capitalism as a starting point: Socialism would be a private business where every employee holds equal nominative shares and voting rights by definition of the statutes. Since Marx came with socialism out of an analysis of capitalism, it should not seem strange that it is just a specific form of capitalism.
So if socialism is against human rights, so is capitalism, since it allows socialism.

Now how does this socialist private business compare to communist regimes?
* the others can vote you out of the system, the votes (the party) rule(s).
* the others can vote your task/role in the system, the votes (the party) rule(s).
* you can not sell your participation, the votes (the party) rule(s), they need to buy it back since it is unlisted.

My (Blue Chip) employer gave me stock options, that I could exercise in the future under the condition that I was still employed by them. My employer is partially socialist?

N.B.: this is no justification for capitalism.

Edit:

The issue is that our government is not allowed to conduct business in the private market and is not allowed to profit. Those powers are not given to it anywhere in the Constitution

I accepted this as answer in the Election thread, but it seems against my rights to vote in a government that will make my country profitable. From this article, I also understand that those powers are nowhere forbidden in the constitution.

 

[Famine]

Socialism or capitalism what is the difference?

Take socialism as a starting point: Capitalism would be an individual initiative with property to create personal wealth, that would be objected by socialism, since the means of production would be used for personal wealth. So socialism excludes capitalism, so pure socialism is against rights, your right to be capitalist.

Take capitalism as a starting point: Socialism would be a private business where every employee holds equal nominative shares and voting rights by definition of the statutes. Since Marx came with socialism out of an analysis of capitalism, it should not seem strange that it is just a specific form of capitalism.
So if socialism is against human rights, so is capitalism, since it allows socialism.

Capitalism allows cooperative business models, not socialism.

A cooperative differs from socialism by intent and use or threat of force - all employees in a cooperative choose to be in it and may choose to leave it through a bilaterally, agreed-upon contract, but socialism requires all subjects to be in it through a unilaterally-determined "social contract" to which no-one is signatory (in fact several subjects wouldn't even be permitted to enter into any kind of legal contract, yet their consent is assumed through merely existing!) and withdrawal results in threat of force or use of force to ensure compliance.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

... socialism requires all subjects to be in it through a unilaterally-determined "social contract" to which no-one is signatory ...

I took a different dictionary this time:

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Nothing states that it needs to be a unilaterally-determined "social contract", there are alternatives allowed on the state in socialism; to give you credit, socialism is mostly misused by people promoting socialism for their own profit, against the right of the people. That is an implementation issue, not a fundamental theory issue.

 

[Famine]

I took a different dictionary this time:

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Then you are flat wrong. Capitalism does not permit socialism, because it does not permit govermental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. It requires individual ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods - the individual, who sells his efforts to others (who we call "employers") and the two work symbiotically according to the terms of a bilaterally accepted contract.

It permits cooperative business models which operate quite like socialism (in fact more like communism), but which are opt-in and opt-out rather than compulsory.

Nothing states that it needs to be a unilaterally-determined "social contract", there are alternatives allowed on the state in socialism; to give you credit, socialism is mostly misused by people promoting socialism for their own profit, against the right of the people. That is an implementation issue, not a fundamental theory issue.

Umm... no. How do you think you get to a situation of "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"? An individual's labour is the property of the individual and he sells this to others for a contract. The only way a government can come into ownership of it is by establishing such a contract. In pure socialism, all goods are produced and distributed by - or the means to do so owned by - the government which means that all individuals have a contract with the government. Now, the contract can be bilaterally agreed upon - by the individual selling his labour and the Government purchasing it - but that would require every individual subject agreeing and signing their own contract with the Government and, more to the point, it would require there to be an alternative to that contract which there isn't since government owns all contracts... So the contract doesn't exist except as an assumed "social contract" (you live here, so you get paid this much, deal with it) which no-one gets to actually sign. Breach of contract - say by withdrawal of labour or withholding funds (tax) - is met by the threat and use of force.

Of course that all rather sounds like communism - only without the part where everyone owns everything, it being owned by central government instead. Funny, that.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

collective or governmental ownership

My socialist private business, is collective, not governmental, no issue in capitalism, no issue with Human Rights. Do not reject a theory on mistakes, even if they where the majority of its use.

Of course that all rather sounds like communism - only without the part where everyone owns everything, it being owned by central government instead. Funny, that.

From what I understood, it is actually a theory: Capitalism => Socialist revolution => elimination of government to come to communism

Now that is what would be happening in companies? Employee (versus Management) buyout (leveraged or not), acquisition of land by economical success => socialist private business that governs a part of the country in a communistic way?

 

[Famine]

Collective (or "common") ownership is communism - ownership by the people who participate. A "socialist" business model would be one that is owned by a single entity or board governing the business...

But, both require a bilaterally agreed-upon contract and neither are funded by the individuals who produce the business's product (a co-operative might be - the employees are shareholders - but not when the business is in profit). Since communism and socialism both require adherence to an assumed contract and funding originating from the general population, you cannot describe any business in such terms.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

The socialist/capitalist discussion seems to go nowhere, IMHO due to distraction by subjectivity, definitions, history, etc
Let us concentrate on the theme of the thread: Natural rights and the social contract as seen by Locke (protection of rights only).
What is the basis of the discussion? What are the works of Adam Smith and Karl Marx about?
It is about the creation and distribution of wealth.

I introduce the next right:
° There is an objective right to get the wealth created by your actions.

I believe that this Natural Right shows again where Human Rights go wrong, the individual only has rights on the wealth it created, it is up to the individual to create a minimal good life, it is up to the justice instance to protect the right on the wealth you created.

Now back to subjective:
Capitalists say that socialist systems do not respect the right on the wealth you create, by attributing wealth to people for being and not for creating wealth.
Socialists say that capitalist systems distribute the wealth disproportionate to the capital and insufficient to the labour, as such not respecting the creation of wealth that the labour does.

The point is indeed is there a system that distributes the wealth according to wealth creation?
For me wealth is again linked to value, thus subjective, thus no place here. I opened a thread.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I believe my rights system was getting too complex and distracted as well, maybe a needed evil.

Natural rights:
* Right to take action without infringing the rights of innocent others.
Your rights introduce a duty, respect the rights of others!
* Right to be presumed innocent.
Otherwise you can not defend your rights anyone could take action against you doing so.
* Right to have yourself as property.
Comes out of the theory of claim rights, you can not have a right on someone else's property.
* Right to not to be imposed commitments on your property by action of others, if you are innocent.
More on this later, this introduces rights conflicts everywhere and makes the subject so difficult.
* Right to get the benefit of the wealth created by your actions.
More linked to economical and development theory, but essential for life, so can not be denied, but again more a source of conflict on rare resouces.

In schort my vision is that rights give conflicts since there is interaction between 2 beings with free will. I do not think that a scientific law is possible, example a stadard law of action and reaction does not exist between people since they have free will, since there is no standard answer there is uncertainty and thus opinion.
These rights can be seen on the level of individuals, groups, nations, etc...

Is it possible to limit the discussions on right conflicts?
I believe the previous discussions were to much focussed on what restrictions people could ask for. People are free to ask anything, but when should it have an effect? The solution might lay more in the right you have to defend against restrictions people try to impose, your rights to defend your freedom.

1) You can not be restricted in your actions with the reason it could violate a right. You have the right to be presumed innocent and this justifies that you can do your action.
a) It means you can do anything innocent and need to be told it is not innocent before it is a rights violation.
e.g.: kids playing hit each other, it is innocent till the other one makes clear it hurts and is a rights violation.
However we can learn by example, this is the goal of law and justice, setting examples with the rights violations others do is essential in making first action less innocent.
One of the issues with law and justice is that they tend to shoot past their goal, they introduce more rights violations then that they solve.
e.g.: The anti Burqa laws presume people wearing a Burqa as guilty, where it is their right to be presumed innocent.

b) Your action needs to be directed towards the one imposing the restriction for you to take restriction serious.
e.g.: Students singing in the streets. They are innocent till the whole street has an issue, not just one person.
e.g.: A strangers come into your city new to her, she is restricted in her movement since you build a wall there. You did build the wall but she was not involved in that action.

2) You can not be imposed to take actions if you are innocent. Right to not to be imposed commitments on your property by action of others if you are innocent.
e.g.: Nobody should impose you to cover or uncover yourself if you choose not to do so.
e.g.: Nobody should impose you to to clean up snow that fell out of the sky, your action did not put the snow there, you are not responsible.
e.g.: Nobody should impose you to stop actions that do not violate their property, like talking, gestures, etc...

3) Self defence = a violation of the rights of others by yourself, but needed to defend your rights.
Everyone should understand that when you start using force to defend your rights everyone has lost already.
The defence should be in line with the violation; eye for an eye, tooth for tooth; where the best is to violate less rights to defend your rights if that is effective.

I wanted to put in 1)a)
e.g.: Defending the principle of rights or the rights of others.
The issue is here, if you do not want to exercise your right, that is an action that you are allowed to take.
Why would you be imposed the rights discussion by the action of someone who thinks you should have defended your right?
On the other hand that people do not defend their rights is a presedent and makes similar actions against you look as if they are innocent.
e.g.: The Burqa in the case of oppressed women, the girls follow the example of their mothers and being oppressed do not think they should stand up for their rights, it is not their position in the society to do so.
This could spread to other families, so these families want to defend the rights of the oppressed not to have the rights violations spread but want to stop them.

The whole view above is again the view of the aggressor defending himself and not a view of protecting the victim, one of the issues with this is that the victim is imposed to be strong and fight for their right, their rights can not be defended for them.
Here I believe we are back at the survival of the fittest, the one that fights the best way to defend their rights wins the conflicts. Not clear if civilisation is that different from natural state after all.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

On rights, the most important are Natural Rights, the rest flows from this.
Rights are there so you can defend your freedom. They are inherently individualistic and there for an action taker.
You are responsible for your acts.

But this misses a more collective/community view. A view that is about protecting the weak, helping each other, being kind, ...
Where it is your right not to be kind, in a community you can reach more. It is known (Adam Smith) that specialisation is leading to more efficiency, this however makes you dependent on other specialsts, so makes you more collective.
First of all these communities have to respect your Natural Rights, but they can go above this. For me this is what moral is about, it helps you take decisions within a community, respecting rights, but also respecting acceptable practices in the community, making things better for all. Part of this is social passports, you are always you, with your way of doing things. However depending on the group you will adapt your moral, a night out with the boys is different from a visit with the grandmother (generally speaking).
My conclusion out of this is that the main issue in the current vision of nations is that there is not real separation between powers.

Legislative power: Creating the law
Executive: Running the nation
Judicial: Judging neutrally on basis of the law
Religion: although this seems separate in most states, it is very close to legislative, the legislative power is just a new form of religion, moral setting body.

Where nations are about communities, just like companies are, they mix the moral they like with rights in laws or internal regulations.
An ideal situation would be that an international community looks after rights, across all nations, and defends the Natural Rights of all individuals and all groups (including the nations). The nations can then look into their moral, laws, etc...
Segregation of duties is important to fight fraud in companies, I believe it's importance is still underestimated in Nations.

 

[Danoff]

I believe my rights system was getting too complex and distracted as well, maybe a needed evil.

Natural rights:
* Right to take action without infringing the rights of innocent others.
Your rights introduce a duty, respect the rights of others!

This doesn't need to be said. Rights are a set of limitations on your actions. You don't need to be told that you have a right to act outside of the limits imposed by rights.

* Right to be presumed innocent.
Otherwise you can not defend your rights anyone could take action against you doing so.

I don't see this as a right (or necessary). This falls into the category of "good procedures". If someone is guilty, he has lost rights regardless of what the evidence suggests - even if he is the only one who knows it. Evidence, innocence until proven guilty, sentencing, all of these things are criminal procedure.

It doesn't matter at all what conclusion the state comes to, or what conclusion a jury comes to, or who presumes you guilty or innocent. If you are innocent, your rights are intact. If you are guilty, your rights are compromised. If you are falsely imprisoned, everyone that is responsible for imprisoning you is violating your rights.

* Right to have yourself as property.
Comes out of the theory of claim rights, you can not have a right on someone else's property.

This exists from the definition of property rights (and so does not need to be explicitly stated). Property rights stem from the one basic right that exists - freedom from force. So strictly speaking, property rights don't need to be stated either, one can derive them.

* Right to not to be imposed commitments on your property by action of others, if you are innocent.

Vague. This is either force or it is not. So this does not need to be stated either.

* Right to get the benefit of the wealth created by your actions.

Stems from property rights. Does not need to be stated.

There is one fundamental right - freedom from force. From that you can derive property rights (taking property = taking labor = forcing labor). And that establishes one's own person as property (though it's clear that freedom from force applies to the person).

In schort my vision is that rights give conflicts since there is interaction

There is no conflict. If there is ever a conflict, it is a result of a misunderstanding of rights.

My right to shoot you vs your right to not be shot is not a conflict. I have no right to shoot you... end of story. "My right to shoot you" does not exist, and so it is not in conflict with anything.

1) You can not be restricted in your actions with the reason it could violate a right.

This is a roundabout way of describing "force".

You have the right to be presumed innocent and this justifies that you can do your action.

You do not have a right to be presumed innocent and nothing justifies any action that violates the rights of others. So there is no conflict.

a) It means you can do anything innocent and need to be told it is not innocent before it is a rights violation.

Incorrect. In legalese, rights are "strict liability". You are guilty of violating them even if you did not know about them. This is due to the nature of rights. Demonstrating that you do not recognize the arbitrary nature of force opens you to force.

e.g.: kids playing hit each other, it is innocent till the other one makes clear it hurts and is a rights violation.

Kids aren't expected to fully understand human rights, and so they don't have all rights. Parents, for example, are routinely allowed to use force against children. For example, a parent can take a child by the arm and lead them to a classroom and make them sit in the classroom against their will. Even if the child does not want to wear the purple bib, for example, a parent can forcibly put the purple bib on a child irrespective of their wishes - forcing them to wear the purple bib. If the child were an adult, this would be a rights violation.

e.g.: The anti Burqa laws presume people wearing a Burqa as guilty, where it is their right to be presumed innocent.

Incorrect. The people wearing the Burqa are guilty, inherently, of violating the burqa law. All of the evidence that is needed to come to this conclusion is wrapped around their head.

The problem with the burqa law is that it forces people not to wear burqas - and that violates their right not to be forced.

e.g.: Students singing in the streets. They are innocent till the whole street has an issue, not just one person.

This is about as arbitrary as it gets. If they are directing noise onto someone's property and there is no noise easement or any other contract of that nature, then they are damaging the person's property with noise. This damage is demonstrable in court. Similar arguments exist for light.

e.g.: A strangers come into your city new to her, she is restricted in her movement since you build a wall there. You did build the wall but she was not involved in that action.

Presumably you built the wall on your property - and she has no right to force you to do or not do anything with your property.

2) You can not be imposed to take actions if you are innocent. Right to not to be imposed commitments on your property by action of others if you are innocent.

Again, this "imposed commitments" discussion is a roundabout way of referring to force. "Stay here or I'll shoot you" is force regardless of whether you shoot.

e.g.: Nobody should impose you to cover or uncover yourself if you choose not to do so.

...on your property.

e.g.: Nobody should impose you to stop actions that do not violate their property, like talking, gestures, etc...

...on your property. Though the only course of action open to them is to threaten to kick you off of their property (which they are entitled to do since it is their property).

3) Self defence = a violation of the rights of others by yourself, but needed to defend your rights.

Self defense is not a violation of the rights of others. They forfeit their rights the moment they violated yours (by demonstrating an inability to recognize the arbitrary nature of force... ie: brandishing a gun in your direction). Their rights do not exist (as a result of their own actions). So you can use force to defend yourself.

The defence should be in line with the violation; eye for an eye, tooth for tooth; where the best is to violate less rights to defend your rights if that is effective.

This is dictated by the nature of rights as well. What rights you forfeit are the rights you demonstrate the inability to recognize. So, eye for an eye.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Thanks again for discussion, it helps a lot to understand different views.

Rights are a set of limitations on your actions. You don't need to be told that you have a right to act outside of the limits imposed by rights.

It seems although we agree on the result, we disagree fundamentally on the basis.
Rights: Something you can defend, with arguments based on logic, that can limit the actions of others who would be infringing rights.
So Rights are things you can defend, that put limitations on others. You must be able to defend actions that are not infringing the rights of others, even these obvious rights must be stated. The others are limited in limiting your actions.

Now the other way around: Rights are a set of limitations on your actions.
Where indeed this leaves you free to do whatever you want if it does not infringe rights, it becomes difficult in the logic of rights.
The community installs a limitation on nudity, they all accept to wear clothes, they limit the action of running around nude. They now restricted your action to be nude with that "limitation" that all the others choose. Actually they can install not wearing a Burqa as a "limitation". You have not right to defend against these limitations, since a right is a limitation in this part. Does not work for me, rights are fundamentally individual, you need to formulate them that way or you run into trouble (I noticed myself).

If someone is guilty, he has lost rights regardless of what the evidence suggests - even if he is the only one who knows it. ... Kids aren't expected to fully understand human rights, and so they don't have all rights.

This would open an attack on the US as justified, due to missing weapons of mass destruction or abusive use of nuclear weapons. I do not believe it is justified, I stick that you keep your rights always. Also this goes against any definition of Natural or Human rights as being innate, if you can lose them (by not respecting them) they are not innate, they are merit.

That is why I stick to the conflict model, Limitations are only against people acting in a way that violates the rights of others.
to be limited = have your rights violated:
1) you need to be violating rights
2) when it is not proven you act, you are innocent (The Bolsheviks thought differently)

Kids are innocent in their actions, till proven otherwise, they have full rights. We impose many things to kids, because we created an environment that does not respect rights in an easy way, their action is innocent, they should be free.

I actually wanted to post on Iran: As much as an American has the right to carry a weapon (if he does not use it), Iran has the right to have nuclear weapons, if they do not use them. Sad but true, absolutely not my values though.

exists from the definition of property rights
...on your property.

I completely refute property rights as they exist.
I saw a kid stating: "I found it so it is mine"; does not work, you have no clue who is using it regularly.
I saw in the thread: "I worked on it, so it is mine, I added value"; that is the basis of slavery, I raised this beast it is mine.

That is why I come to wealth creation as basis. Property is a solution to secure wealth creation, not the other way around, there are assets and liabilities involved.

You can not violate rights, not even on your property, but judgment might be in your favor on your property in conflicts.

e.g.: This week-end I came to the conclusion that I should be able to walk into your house and back out, I should be assumed innocent, the restrictions stopping me from doing this are only coming from infringements of my rights. In my society, I would not do it, but that has nothing to do with fundamental rights.

freedom from force

we seem to agree:

* Right to not to be imposed commitments on your property by action of others, if you are innocent.

I do not see a difference, except that "Freedom from force" IMHO has a lot more possible interpretation, it is more vague then my formulation for me.

"Stay here or I'll shoot you" is force regardless of whether you shoot.
If they are directing noise onto someone's property and there is no noise easement or any other contract of that nature, then they are damaging the person's property with noise. This damage is demonstrable in court.

Exactly the same as the man in the bar saying you are free to go, but I will continue talking to you. "damaging the person's property with noise, force regardless"

If there is ever a conflict, it is a result of a misunderstanding of rights.

Do you really believe:
1) everybody will agree with your every action? if not
2) your actions have no influence on the people around you? if not
you have conflict, even on basic things as rights.

My right to shoot you vs your right to not be shot is not a conflict. I have no right to shoot you... end of story.

You indeed missed the conflict: My right to shoot you vs your right to not be shot is not a conflict.
I find your problem description very subjective already, leading to judgment.
I have the right to act, in this case shoot. You have the right not to be imposed commitments on your property, receive a bullet in your body, get shot. A possible limitation out of this conflict is that I can not shoot at you, but that is judgment and not respecting the judgment would justify using force.

Incorrect. In legalese, rights are "strict liability". You are guilty of violating them even if you did not know about them. This is due to the nature of rights. Demonstrating that you do not recognize the arbitrary nature of force opens you to force.

Judgment again for me, not about rights, but about guilt.
I fully agree you have violated rights, even if you did not know it was a rights violation. But if you go from this, you can not do anything since it could violate rights you do not know about. this does not work, you have to be assumed innocent, it is a basic right.

 

[Danoff]

Now the other way around: Rights are a set of limitations on your actions.
Where indeed this leaves you free to do whatever you want if it does not infringe rights, it becomes difficult in the logic of rights.
The community installs a limitation on nudity, they all accept to wear clothes, they limit the action of running around nude. They now restricted your action to be nude with that "limitation" that all the others choose. Actually they can install not wearing a Burqa as a "limitation". You have not right to defend against these limitations, since a right is a limitation in this part. Does not work for me, rights are fundamentally individual, you need to formulate them that way or you run into trouble (I noticed myself).

Their actions are limited as well. They do not have the right to act in a manner preventing you from wearing a Burqa.

This would open an attack on the US as justified, due to missing weapons of mass destruction or abusive use of nuclear weapons.

Nope. The origins of those conflicts nullify the sovereignty of Japan and Iraq.

Also this goes against any definition of Natural or Human rights as being innate, if you can lose them (by not respecting them) they are not innate, they are merit.

They are logic. You demonstrate a willingness to live by subjective standards - and so you subject yourself to it. This is free choice on your part. You choose to violate rights, and so others can choose to violate yours. This absolves you of rights.

Kids are innocent in their actions, till proven otherwise, they have full rights. We impose many things to kids, because we created an environment that does not respect rights in an easy way, their action is innocent, they should be free.

They haven't met the criteria for a full compliment of rights. A 5 year old does not understand the logical implications of all of his actions (due to the maturity of his brain). This is why we neither hold him responsible for those actions, nor do we give him the freedom that that responsibility would entail. The difference between a 5 year old and an animal is the potential to one day act in accordance with human rights.

I actually wanted to post on Iran: As much as an American has the right to carry a weapon (if he does not use it), Iran has the right to have nuclear weapons, if they do not use them. Sad but true, absolutely not my values though.

Except for the treaty (contract) that they signed that said they would not have them, you are right. But they freely entered into a contract which stipulated that they would not obtain nuclear weapons in exchange for actions to be taken on our part. That was a free choice of theirs, and they have to live with it.

I completely refute property rights as they exist.
I saw a kid stating: "I found it so it is mine"; does not work, you have no clue who is using it regularly.

That's not the basis of property rights.

I saw in the thread: "I worked on it, so it is mine, I added value"; that is the basis of slavery, I raised this beast it is mine.

That only works with unowned resources - so it cannot be the basis of slavery.

You can not violate rights, not even on your property, but judgment might be in your favor on your property in conflicts.

Obviously a rights violation on anyone's property is still a rights violation. My point is that you can only control the actions of others on your property - and only by forcing them off of your property since they do not have the right to be on your property.

e.g.: This week-end I came to the conclusion that I should be able to walk into your house and back out, I should be assumed innocent, the restrictions stopping me from doing this are only coming from infringements of my rights. In my society, I would not do it, but that has nothing to do with fundamental rights.

That's my property, until you have permission to enter you do not have the right to modify my property by existing on it for even a second, even if you do not disturb anything and leave. Doing so would violate my property rights and likely absolve you of some of your property rights.

I do not see a difference, except that "Freedom from force" IMHO has a lot more possible interpretation, it is more vague then my formulation for me.

Your formulation is entirely too specific and, as a result, seems way too arbitrary. Freedom from force has a specific meaning even if it can be misinterpreted.

Exactly the same as the man in the bar saying you are free to go, but I will continue talking to you. "damaging the person's property with noise, force regardless"

You're on someone else's property. You chose to exist in their environment. Their air, the vibrations in their air, the smells, chemical content, etc. of their air. You choose how long you wish to immerse yourself in that environment and whether you want to leave. You have absolutely zero control over their property.

Do you really believe:
1) everybody will agree with your every action? if not

That's absurd. No one will ever agree with anyone's every action. In fact, I'd argue that someone exists who will disagree with practically any action you could identify.

2) your actions have no influence on the people around you? if not
you have conflict, even on basic things as rights.

Your action will have influence on the people around you, and those people choose to allow themselves to be influenced. There is no conflict.

You indeed missed the conflict: My right to shoot you vs your right to not be shot is not a conflict.

You do not have a right to shoot an innocent person. End of story. It is not your right, there is no conflict. You may have a right to shoot other things on your property, but that doesn't somehow create a conflict when the object being shot is an innocent person.

I fully agree you have violated rights, even if you did not know it was a rights violation. But if you go from this, you can not do anything since it could violate rights you do not know about. this does not work, you have to be assumed innocent, it is a basic right.

It doesn't matter whether you know about that, ignorance doesn't change anything about the derivation of human rights. Whether you realize the implications of imposing force on another person or not, you are still subject to those implications. You choosing to impose force on another person demonstrates something about you - your view of human interaction, your view of the legitimacy of subjective action. It doesn't matter whether you understand that or not, it still demonstrates it. The implications of that are as logical as always.

Furthermore, you do not have a right to force anyone to assume anything about you for any reason. That would be using force against them.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Sorry I did not have time to look at the discussion above yet? I will do.

I believe I came to a next stage in my understanding: Authority only comes out of rights. (John Locke beat me to it, ages ago, I know)

If you defend your own rights, you have authority over yourself.
When you defend the rights of others, you get an authority over the others, they have some liability towards you.
Now here is the catch-22: When you violate the rights of others, you lose authority over the others, you have a liability towards them.
So you can not violate the rights of the individual, trying to defend their rights or you loose the authority to act in their name.

2 related subjects:
1) Generousity creates authority for yourself over others.
What right would this be based on? You have the right to the wealth created by your actions. Generousity is sharing that wealth, where you would have right to keep it for yourself. So the people accepting your generousity do have a liability towards you.
2) A generous and rights defending dictator has full authority.
Many people think that dictators are bad, democracy is the only fair system.
Back to Hobbes, there are only 3 systems of government: Monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.
Monarchy, be it dictator or royalty or president, has only 1 person that has the lead.
Aristocracy, works with representatives and majority vote, be it in the party or bodies of government.
Democracy, everyone votes, like in a popular referendum.
Be clear most of our life is managed by Monarchy and Aristocracy, since democracy is not practical, not at all.

We follow or elect the leader, when we see that this leader defends our rights. We revolt or elect opposition, when we see that this leader violates our rights.
The point is that people can group up and see that a leader is defending their rights, where the leader might be offending the rights of others.
The group has no more rights then the individual, they can not force the other to not defend it's rights. In not respecting the rights of the other, the group loses it's authority over the other.

1) The others should have a way to defend their rights: That is why I promote international organisations for this, since justice under the leader will hardly be impartial.
2) We should oppose to authority that does not respect rights (even those of others), since the not respect of rights show they do not have authority.

The only way you can exclude people from your society is:
1) If they are not innocent, do not respect natural rights. By defending your rights, using their loss of authority over you.
2) If you do not respect rights, losing authority yourself. You laws have no value, they are yours and yours only.
However you can insult them, laugh at them, not include them in your group activities; you can not say they have to do like you or move out.
But they can insult back, laugh back and group up with outher outcasts to have their activities.

This all to come to that border checks (private home, nation, etc...) that stop people because you do not want them undermines your authority, it is your rules that go against the Natural Rights of others.
It is only when people steal you wealth or do not respect your natural rights that you can do something.=> Rights protect the innocent, but that gives the andvantage of surprise to an attacker.

An other important conclusion, a pure capitalist, individualistic view, where you only protect your rights and disrespects the rights of others in conflict, undermines your authority. A more collective view, where the rights of all (still in conflict) are defended increases your authority.
However authority does not change rights, it can not violate rights or it disappears.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

My conclusion on authority leads to the next. All we do is selfish.
We only respect the rights of others, since otherwise we can not defend our own rights.
We only build communities (by being generous, kind), since it is the best way to protect our rights and otherwise we can not organise our wealth creation optimally with specialisation.
I have not found a motivation (duty) to be good to others, except that this is good for us (logical, although not in clear measurable entities).

================

On the replies of Danoff, I was interupted by work/administration several times, which gave me the time to try and shape it in a usefull discusison.
1) It makes sense.
2) I feel it is completely misdirected.

You do not have a right to shoot an innocent person.

1) It makes sense.
2) But why do I not just accept it then? Does it not make sense in my conflict model?
You have the right to act, shoot.
The innocent person has the right not to be imposed limitations on their property if they are innocent.
a) The action of you shooting an innocent other, you would limit the action of the innocent to no action, thru death.
b) By stopping you to shoot the innocent person, the innocent person has limited the not innocent action of you.
"a)" is obviously an action against a right, where "b)" is an action to protect a right.
"You" in the sentence is responsible for action a) and for action b) (as not being innocent thus forcing the action).

All this is logical, all this is objective. What is the difference?
"You do not have a right to shoot an innocent person." is a judgement, it is the thing that follows out of rights, how logical, how objective it might be, it is not treating the rights, it is a judgement.
We are thought to think this way, laws are generally applicable judgements, implementations of rights.
The whole issue is that "an innocent person" is an interpretation of the situation, that the "You shoot someone" as deliberate act is a interpretation of the situation. To do justice, you need to let go of standard judgement and go back to rights in their pure form, mostly the standard judgements will apply, sometimes the will not.

This absolves you of rights.

1) It makes sense, if someone does not respect your rights, you can defend your rights.
2) Rights come purely out of logic, thus they are independent of your acts, they only depend on logic.
If your living by subjective standards absolves your rights they come not out of logic alone, but also out of your choice not to believe in them, which would invalidate the premisis that Rights come purely out of logic. So you have to choose rights come out of logic or rights can be absolved. You can not have both, it is illogical.
Here my authority comes in, by not respecting the rights of others, you loose the authority to judge for others and others gain authority to judge you. You do not loose your rights, but you become under the authority of others to put limitations on you.

They haven't met the criteria for a full compliment of rights. A 5 year old does not understand the logical implications of all of his actions (due to the maturity of his brain). This is why we neither hold him responsible for those actions, nor do we give him the freedom that that responsibility would entail. The difference between a 5 year old and an animal is the potential to one day act in accordance with human rights.

1) It makes sense, children have to learn and we should give them the time to do so.
2) Again rights come purely out of logic. If a requirement is that you need to understand your rights for them to exist, that element is new to the definition of rights. Rights are not just logical, but are linked to understanding them. There is no issue killing a baby, it does not have rights, or how would you decide which rights are applicable or not? When you accept that rights are purely out of logic, you do not have to understand them, you only need to exist. You do not need to understand logic for logic to exist.
A child is smarter then most acknowledge, it recognises the authority the parent has, an authority the parent gets through respecting the rights of the child and kindness. On the other hand you are responsible for your acts, I agree we are more tolerant towards children, because we see them as more innocent, it changes the judgement (subjective), not the responsibility (objective).

It doesn't matter whether you know about that, ignorance doesn't change anything about the derivation of human rights.Whether you realize the implications of imposing force on another person or not, you are still subject to those implications. You choosing to impose force on another person demonstrates something about you - your view of human interaction, your view of the legitimacy of subjective action. It doesn't matter whether you understand that or not, it still demonstrates it. The implications of that are as logical as always.

Indeed that is also the case for children.

My point is that you can only control the actions of others on your property - and only by forcing them off of your property since they do not have the right to be on your property. ... That's my property, until you have permission to enter you do not have the right to modify my property by existing on it for even a second, even if you do not disturb anything and leave. Doing so would violate my property rights and likely absolve you of some of your property rights.

1) It makes sense, I agree with the right.
2) But I judge it differently, I disagree with the property claim. As usual it is a subjective law that overkills and violates more rights then it does protect. Eye for Eye is the principle, many use property for life, when you walk where they decided you should not. Property is obvious as a way to protect rights, but what are your liabilities?
Being honest, this is why I started the wealth thread, if you do more work then what is needed for your immediate survival (=invest effort) you should be able to protect this wealth creation, we use property and that seems a logical way, but we miss some liabilities in the equation.

I'd argue that someone exists who will disagree with practically any action you could identify.
Your action will have influence on the people around you, and those people choose to allow themselves to be influenced. There is no conflict.

1) It makes sense, you do not go to court for everyting.
2) That people do not use their right, because they see in the context that their right is less important then the right of others, does not annul the right, does not change there is conflict. A victim can be unable to choose to exercise their right or choose not to exercise it, that does not change the right. War fugitives do not leave since their right is not violated, they leave since they can not exercise that right immediately.

Furthermore, you do not have a right to force anyone to assume anything about you for any reason. That would be using force against them.

1) It makes sense, they can think what they want.
2) But it is dead wrong, you can only limit actions if people are not innocent. You need to be able to limit the limitations put on you.
If you can assume people not innocent: al whites are ..., all jews are ..., all asians are..., all blacks are ...
The only thing I can put there is innocent untill proven otherwise, because that is their fundamental right, it is needed to guarantee their freedom.

My conclusion:
1) We judge continuously, this does not mean there is no rights conflict, it just means that in most conflicts we respect the right of the other, both accept the same judgement without words.
2) We judge continuously, so we mix up standard judgements with rights, that is why people have issues to let go of laws as the only guidance of rights, they do not let go of the more easy judgement. Moral is about judgement to make choices, it is more natural to us then rights.
3) Even judgements can be objective, if the responsibility of action is only on one side.

 

[Keef]

I accepted this as answer in the Election thread, but it seems against my rights to vote in a government that will make my country profitable. From this article, I also understand that those powers are nowhere forbidden in the constitution.

Excuse me, but in order to understand what is or is not Constitutional, you should be linking me to clauses within the Constitution itself, not a news article. Only the Constitution states what is actually in the Constitution; I carry one around with me like Foolkiller because a lot of people like to pull a lot of things out of their ass and tell me it's fact when it isn't.

 

[TankAss95]

Just a quick question. Thought it was somewhat related to this thread so posted here.

Is morality purely on what our actions/non-actions are, or is morality more to do with the passive states of motivation/feeling/character that precede our actions and cause us to perform them? It was David Hume who believed this. He thought morality is primarily about being an admirable and virtuous kind of person, and that our actions is something secondary that merely follows on, dependent upon the passive states of who we are.

Of course we can't measure this in the same way, and we base justice in courts on actions and actions alone (presuming the person(s) involved were in control of their actions), but how do you personally judge morality?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Is morality purely on what our actions/non-actions are, or is morality more to do with the passive states of motivation/feeling/character that precede our actions and cause us to perform them? It was David Hume who believed this. He thought morality is primarily about being an admirable and virtuous kind of person, and that our actions is something secondary that merely follows on, dependent upon the passive states of who we are.

Of course we can't measure this in the same way, and we base justice in courts on actions and actions alone (presuming the person(s) involved were in control of their actions), but how do you personally judge morality?

Clearly it seems that morality is defined in too many ways, intention however how noble can be wrong.

The transplant case is the clearest on this, even if you want to save 5 people, you can not do this at all cost.

So what we came to a while ago in this thread is that morals can be different (personal) and thus lead to different actions by different people, however a moral is only valid if it respects basic rights. So a moral that kills innocent people is wrong.

Motivation/feeling/character can only be secondary in your motivations, the first step is to assure your action does not violate rights of innocent others.

 

[Crystal xxx]

Freedom of expression is the most important!!!

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Freedom of expression is the most important!!!

So you do believe that the Matrix (if you know the concept) is OK as long as you can say what you want in the Matrix, it does not matter that all you live is a lie and that you are exploited as an energy source?

But the point is valid, basically you should not be prosecuted for what you think and you should be able to express your thoughts. The main reason that this is needed is to defend your rights, if there are rights, the right to express your thoughts logically follows out of their pure existence.

However this is not reality:
* Perjury
* Historical revisionism
* Vandalism (Graffiti, etc...)
* or from the AUP of GTPlanet:
- You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.
- You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.
- You will not use profanity in the forums, nor link to content which contains offensive language without sufficient warning.

Somewhere there is a limit to what you can express and the main limit for me is where you express in a way that abuses the right of others.
(Warning, this is my conflict model.) In principle you have the right of expression and it should not be easy to stop this! Even if others do not feel comfortable with what you say. The main point where you can get an issue with expression is if it is directed, not factual and repeated. The expression of someone in that case will "impose commitments on your property" or be a "force that restricts your freedom", where you are innocent, then you should have the right to restrict the expression of the other.

e.g.:
* On Historical revisionism, I'm more for measures that force people to include other more scientific references then to ban the theories.
* On political correctness: people should ask what the person means with the term they use and not see every word as insulting.
* We discussed the swastika in the Burqa thread.

 

[Crystal xxx]

Look, dude, when did I say that I do not respect rules? Well, tbh, personally, for me it's more about respecting the community, rather than the rules thingy.... I don't like doing what others dint like! And communities and often based around rules... So...And I like to do the right thing!
(includes on forums, I don't wanna do what the staff dont like, of course )

Actually, I suppose we could say that respect is the most imrtatn human right, as all good behaviour comes under the heading 'respect'!!! We respect rules, laws, and morality... And other people, of course

 

[FoolKiller]

Actually, I suppose we could say that respect is the most imrtatn human right, as all good behaviour comes under the heading 'respect'!!! We respect rules, laws, and morality... And other people, of course

Respect isn't a right, human or civil. There is no moral or legal consequence to not respecting someone, especially if they don't deserve it.


EDIT:

So you do believe that the Matrix (if you know the concept) is OK as long as you can say what you want in the Matrix, it does not matter that all you live is a lie and that you are exploited as an energy source?

But the point is valid, basically you should not be prosecuted for what you think and you should be able to express your thoughts. The main reason that this is needed is to defend your rights, if there are rights, the right to express your thoughts logically follows out of their pure existence.

However this is not reality:
* Perjury
* Historical revisionism
* Vandalism (Graffiti, etc...)
* or from the AUP of GTPlanet:

What do civil and/or legal rights have to do with Human Rights?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Look, dude, when did I say that I do not respect rules?

There was nothing personal in it. It was just to make a point on limitations that exist on freedom, however fundamental that freedom is.

Respect isn't a right, human or civil. There is no moral or legal consequence to not respecting someone, especially if they don't deserve it.

I disagree with this, not respecting others reduces your authority (= the respect others will have for you). If you only care about yourself, I will be unlikely to take into account your opinion on rights.
Respect should be seen in respect of rights, the rights of others, not admiration, etc...

What do civil and/or legal rights have to do with Human Rights?

First I discuss Natural Rights: Rights that do not need to be written, that are logical, that everyone has (they are natural, innate (from birth)), ...

Human Rights: Should be nothing more then Natural Rights to me, but many add to this: "The right to a decent living", "The right to drinkable water", etc... all things that seem to be rights that force someone to do something for you????

Legal rights: I regret to call this negotiated agreements, the majority of a community thinks up a rule to respect rights and writes this down (Legal = written in law). This might concern Natural Rights, but actually could be against your natural rights. Mostly these agreements are good for the case they were created, but infringe more rights then they protect.

Civil rights: special part of legal rights that represents the right to participate in the community, should just be a respect of Natural Rights as well. You might have a merit to get something extra from a community, like health care. My vision is that this is more like a contract (agreement again) where there is a merit and a return. e.g. You might not have the right to vote, but then the person elected has no right to impose anything to you either. You might have a right on social security, but then you need to pay your contributions.

The discussion goes quickly to the authority of a state and should it be about more then Natural rights?

 

[Keef]

Human Rights: Should be nothing more then Natural Rights to me, but many add to this: "The right to a decent living", "The right to drinkable water", etc... all things that seem to be rights that force someone to do something for you????

"Natural" rights and "human" rights are the same thing as far as I'm concerned. THey're human because they only apply to humans, and they're natural because of their logical existence. Both names describe the same principle.