Human Rights

[niky]

Like what?

A farmer plows a field and plants seed to maintain the resources of a plot of land in a manner that supports him and his own.

A hunter does not plow a forest or field, but leaves it as is in order to maintain the resources of that same plot in a manner that supports him and his own.

The latter utilizes the land resource in a less efficient way, but he still utilizes it and works it (by hunting, gathering), and exerts an effort to maintain it as is, defending it from other tribes and would-be farmers who would like to plow it for their own reasons.

There is no labor imparted in transforming the land, but by protecting that land against others who would transform it, they do invest labor in ensuring it stays as it is.

I realize this has absolutely nothing to do with roaming nomads who not only don't protect their plots but wander around and settle where they may... and I agree... by right of claiming a plot of land and developing it, the people of France have say over how it's used... but a non-farming society may act as stewards over land without actively tilling it. It's worth noting that the Mongol horsemen did not actively farm (they raised horses) yet controlled most of the known world at one point.

 

[Keef]

The reason agricultural societies developed is because hunter gatherer societies had no notion of property. The only property they actually had was the particular animal they had just killed. In order for something to become yours you must use labor to transform it into something usable. Everything else is just wilderness.

 

[Danoff]

By not mixing labor and natural resources, the hunter-gatherers disassociate the work they do from the resources they use. This makes it extremely difficult (I think impossible given that I've never seen it done) for them to make a property claim over that land. The concept of property rights over natural resources is based on the impossibility of divorcing the labor from the resource.

You say that they labor to defend the resources, but this is actually not labor but a violation of the rights of those who would use those resources. If you have not established property rights, how can you justify using force to defend others from resources you do not own?

 

[Ibonibo]

Sorry of your current topic, but i read this and i found it kind of shocking.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_jail_ray_gun
Seems to me USA have more than just one Joe Arpaio (who's a "nazi" in my believes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

 

[Nero9]

*sigh*
Everybody should be equal. Enough said.

 

[Danoff]

...you'd think so. But apparently it isn't.

 

[niky]

You say that they labor to defend the resources, but this is actually not labor but a violation of the rights of those who would use those resources. If you have not established property rights, how can you justify using force to defend others from resources you do not own?

So a bunch of fruitarians defending a natural forest of Mangoes or Apples from hunter-gatherers trying to muscle their way in is unjustified?

The problem is... you now have the legal rights of the French over properties that they neither farm nor use (public lands). Maybe building roads around these properties counts, but does hacking a path through a forest make it yours?

While I have no love of squatters... as a landowner who owns undeveloped land (undeveloped because we haven't had the time or resources to get around to developing it), I'm interested in what level of labor you can or should put into it to declare it yours. (Aside from the labor, obviously, used to earn the money to buy the land.)

 

[Danoff]

It has to be labor that can't be divorced from the resource. Hacking a path might be good enough.

After the resource is owned - you can sell it to whomever you choose. The person you sell it to doesn't have to have worked or transformed the resource to own it. Basically, only the very first person to lay claim to a land has to have "mixed labor" with it. After that, it's a system of trade and ownership.

I will admit, though, that my own derivation of property rights does seem to have a bit of a back door against people who allow their land to completely revert to a wild state - not even a fence. But again, this would have to be the first owner. Once labor is exchanged for an owned resource, it cannot be divorced from the resource either - even if that resource is in a completely natural state.

Did that make any sense at all? It makes sense to me but I don't get the feeling that I'm communicating well at the moment.

 

[Keef]

It seems pretty logical to me. I mean, imagine a guy told you "Hey buddy, I've got this great piece of land to sell you, it's just fantastic". You go have a look at it and it turns out to be an untouched wild field without even a fence or boundary. I'd ask him who owns it. He'd say "I do". I'd say "Doesn't look like anybody owns it to me. Nobody lives here, nobody works here, nobody built a fence around it. I'm pretty sure nobody owns this and you're just trying to get some money off me. Get lost!"

That's about how that would turn out. I think any reasonable person would have about that same thought process and would realize that nobody owns it if they haven't made it theirs by building something on it or putting a fence around it.

So lets say one guy builds a house. He lives there, and therefore claims the land for himself. Let's say another person wanders along and says oh, look, a house, that guy must own this land. This person wants to live here too, so he goes and talks to the original owner and they negotiate a price and boundary between their newly divided parcels of land. Everyone is happy.

Why do you think you've head stories about cowboys "riding the fences", inspecting them for faults? A fence is the only logical way to define the extent of your land when you've got a piece of land thousands of acres in size, to the point you can't even see your house anymore.

 

[niky]

It has to be labor that can't be divorced from the resource. Hacking a path might be good enough.

After the resource is owned - you can sell it to whomever you choose. The person you sell it to doesn't have to have worked or transformed the resource to own it. Basically, only the very first person to lay claim to a land has to have "mixed labor" with it. After that, it's a system of trade and ownership.

I will admit, though, that my own derivation of property rights does seem to have a bit of a back door against people who allow their land to completely revert to a wild state - not even a fence. But again, this would have to be the first owner. Once labor is exchanged for an owned resource, it cannot be divorced from the resource either - even if that resource is in a completely natural state.

Did that make any sense at all? It makes sense to me but I don't get the feeling that I'm communicating well at the moment.

Don't worry... it's making sense.

I guess the problem is, indeed, that nomadic people don't have a clear sense of property... and thus don't take steps to ensure that their land is "their land".

So once you've exchanged money for a property, even if you haven't developed it beyond the state you bought it in, it's yours. This gives landowners precendence against squatters who farm the land without ascertaining ownership.

Of course, the over-riding claim is the government who owns the land either by right of conquest or development and is the one who assigns the land to landowners who have purchased it or developed it.

---

RE: Fences: It does make sense. For the landed and un-landed... considering wild land not owned by any sovereign government... whoever first decides to develop a piece of land gets precedence over it. Back in the day, there was enough land that those with no concept of property would not suffer from it. It's only an issue now that all land is pretty much laid claim to, or set aside as "nature preserve", where those who still (over the past twenty centuries) haven't gotten the concept of fencing in their own plot are in genuine danger of not having any land of their own to wander around in.

 

[Danoff]

Right, so forgetting about governments for a bit - pretend you're walking through the wilderness and you come across a bit of land that you like. You build a house on it. You live in it for a while, but eventually you head somewhere else for a bit. While you're gone the house burns down, the ashes are scattered, and vegetation takes over.

One day you come back to your land. Your house is gone, you realize that it has burned down. Someone else is walking around your land surveying to build a house. You say "this is my land". They say "no it's not". You say "I've put work into this land, if you take it for yourself you're forcing me to work for you". They say "show me the work". You say "I can't it burned down". They say "So how then is my taking this land forcing you to work for me?"

That's how the first owner can lose his property rights.

Here's another scenario...

While your house is up, you sell your land to a farmer. You agree on a price, and it constitutes a year of work on his part (ie: he had to farm for 1 year to make enough money to buy the land from you). The farmer says "prove that this is your land". You say "I built that house, and this fence". The farmer says ok and trades you (via currency) a year of his labor for the labor you put into the land you're selling him.

Now you own the labor he has mixed with the land, and that is your proof of ownership.

Another organization can come along and help you prove ownership more directly (eg: deeds) so that you don't have to point to a structure as proof that you own the land. But to start that process, someone still needs to establish ownership of unowned land by working it.

 

[A2K78]

There is only 1 right humans have, and that is the right is to individual liberty. Aside from that anybody that believe that government should be a guaranteer of rights is deeply flawed because a government that give rights is a government that took rights whenever it feels as Ron Paul have correctly said. Not only that,but the very fact government can give rights have its foundation in Marxism.

 

[Public'sTwin]

The debate over rights is moot, IMO. Human civilization is a self-organized entity which granted power to those willing to take it and wield it, and assign those rights to others under pressure of the masses or powerful, interested, minorities. As far as I'm concerned, the only universal "right" anyone really has is the right to defend themselves.

 

[Danoff]

There is only 1 right humans have, and that is the right is to individual liberty. Aside from that anybody that believe that government should be a guaranteer of rights is deeply flawed because a government that give rights is a government that took rights whenever it feels as Ron Paul have correctly said. Not only that,but the very fact government can give rights have its foundation in Marxism.

A government's job can be to protect rights without it being the originator of those rights. Your government doesn't give you rights, reason gives you rights - the government's job is to safeguard those rights.

The debate over rights is moot, IMO. Human civilization is a self-organized entity which granted power to those willing to take it and wield it, and assign those rights to others under pressure of the masses or powerful, interested, minorities. As far as I'm concerned, the only universal "right" anyone really has is the right to defend themselves.

Ignoring reason and justice perhaps...

 

[Nero9]

...you'd think so. But apparently it isn't.

Actually the government makes it all complex when it's just that easy to solve...
Oh well, we can't do anything about it, yet.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

A government's job can be to protect rights without it being the originator of those rights. Your government doesn't give you rights, reason gives you rights - the government's job is to safeguard those rights.

The first time I read this (a while ago, this is not the first time this statement was made) I thought Danoff was being negative.
But then I started digging why I could not be moved by this, my conclusion was that I profoundly believe that a government can not even safeguard those rights.

They can try, they can already not use abusive power themselves, but when the people around you do not believe in respecting your rights, it is very difficult to get them respected. The law put in place by the government allows you to seek justice, but then it is too late, your rights have not been safe but have been abused by others.

So the role of government is limited to creating a system that allows to give you justice when your rights have been abused and measures to convince people to respect the rights of others.

It is their appreciation of rights and their appreciation of measures needed to allow you to pursue justice and measures needed to convince people to "do the right thing".

==================
Thanks "niky" for keeping my point alive in the discussion.

A hunter does not plow a forest or field, but leaves it as is in order to maintain the resources of that same plot in a manner that supports him and his own.

The latter utilizes the land resource in a less efficient way, but he still utilizes it and works it (by hunting, gathering), and exerts an effort to maintain it as is, defending it from other tribes and would-be farmers who would like to plow it for their own reasons.

There is no labor imparted in transforming the land, but by protecting that land against others who would transform it, they do invest labor in ensuring it stays as it is.

I guess the problem is, indeed, that nomadic people don't have a clear sense of property... and thus don't take steps to ensure that their land is "their land".

For them the next:

It has to be labor that can't be divorced from the resource.

I think any reasonable person would have about that same thought process and would realize that nobody owns it if they haven't made it theirs by building something on it or putting a fence around it.

is absolutely illogical, since they do not have the same sense of property. I hope you did see the film Avatar, it is very much discussing this issue.

So it is our logic and our laws that make property the way it is and some groups (Indians, Amazon Tribes, Roma, Na'vi) have a different logic and are crushed by our laws.

=====
You might have read the UN lectured the French about their treatment of the Roma. It seems they state:

It voiced concern about "racist stereotypes and hate speech" against minorities including Roma by certain media, political parties and politicians in Romania.

I do sense that some people talking here about "Vagabonds" are very close to get the same remarks.

The French clearly responded from their side: Every case is seen as an individual case (person by person, no collective measure against the Roma) and within the law and on a voluntary basis.

They understand the issue clearly, do they really apply? I'm not convinced by their communication outside of the above reaction.

=====

A2K78 There is only 1 right humans have, and that is the right is to individual liberty.

Very unclear statement for me. Liberty is not so strong a concept in Europe then in the US, I have the impression.

So what is it:
I have the liberty to pie where I want, even if it is in court, against you leg, or both at the same time?
I have the liberty to speak, even if it is saying incorrect things to serve my purposes.
btw: GTPlanet does not give you this right, see the Acceptable Use Policy.

You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.

I have the liberty to shoot anyone that comes near me and that I find suspect, since I'm slow and if I wait for them to draw first I will die for sure.
....

Are Human Rights not just a set of guidelines to make certain the liberty of you and the other humans are respected?

=====
I did miss how the robot in the prisons (article of Ibo), abused the rights of the prisoners. However I do see that this seems to be exaggerated violence and should only be used in extreme situations of disorder in the prison.

The Sheriff is a clear example, you know who is the boss here, ....

So it is the logic and interpretation of laws of the Sheriff that really makes how you live in his town.

========

Public'sTwin Human civilization is a self-organized entity which granted power to those willing to take it and wield it, and assign those rights to others under pressure of the masses or powerful, interested, minorities. As far as I'm concerned, the only universal "right" anyone really has is the right to defend themselves.

I want to add at the end: ... in respect of others.

I wanted to come back to this, based on my statements above and several thoughts I had. It is just hard material to work with so I'm still working on the right wording.

In short my issue is defend based on what? There come the Human Rights back or is there an alternative?

 

[Danoff]

The first time I read this (a while ago, this is not the first time this statement was made) I thought Danoff was being negative.
But then I started digging why I could not be moved by this, my conclusion was that I profoundly believe that a government can not even safeguard those rights.

They can try, they can already not use abusive power themselves, but when the people around you do not believe in respecting your rights, it is very difficult to get them respected. The law put in place by the government allows you to seek justice, but then it is too late, your rights have not been safe but have been abused by others.

So the role of government is limited to creating a system that allows to give you justice when your rights have been abused and measures to convince people to respect the rights of others.

It is their appreciation of rights and their appreciation of measures needed to allow you to pursue justice and measures needed to convince people to "do the right thing".

Nicely put.

is absolutely illogical, since they do not have the same any sense of property rights. I hope you did see the film Avatar, it is very much discussing this issue.

Fixed.

Re: Avatar. The Na'Vi worked the land, it was theirs. Their rights to their labor was taken due to what I would describe as an "anarchistic" system in which rights were not observed.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

To take my previous points one step beyond:

I want to appologise to anybody that might feel offended by the principles below or if I was incomplete in facts used or just to long. I have myself a hard time thinking about this subject, however I keep coming to very similar (for me painful) conclusions. This is clearly one reason why I'm discussing here, I would like to see a more ideal vision, sadly I'm still searching for this at this moment.

First of all this is based on some theories that are not mine (main quotes below are from wikipedia):
* Individualism vs. collectivism (Geert Hofstede)
* bounded rationality (Herbert Simon)
* Ubermensch (Nietzsche) a theory I struggle with.

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

* Individualism vs. collectivism

How much members of the culture define themselves apart from their group memberships. In individualist cultures, people are expected to develop and display their individual personalities and to choose their own affiliations. In collectivist cultures, people are defined and act mostly as a member of a long-term group, such as the family, a religious group, an age cohort, a town, or a profession, among others. This dimension was found to move towards the individualist end of the spectrum with increasing national wealth.

Western philosophy is heavily based on their affection to individualism. So also their interpretation of property. I personally really see this as essential for the way my life is organised.

According to my feeling (yeah, yeah I know) the issue with the Indians, Amazon tribes and Roma is that they have a much lower individualism. So a very different view on property, probably a more collective view, very difficult for Westeners to understand.

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

Herbert Simon
Bounded rationality is the notion that in decision making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make decisions.

We limit the decisions to what we see relevant, possible to discuss in a "reasonable" amount of time. This influence the logic we use, the ethics we use, the human rights we attribute.

In short, we can not take into account everything and have to take some shortcuts, this will lead to "our best" but maybe not the ideal solution.

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


To come to the next point: How did Indians live before the Cowboys. It is clear to me when 2 clans would be after the same resources, they would have a fight. All the best resources (resistance power) of the losing clan would disappear, the rest would be integrated in the winning clan. "survival of the fittest" would have done its work.

Not a very glamorous vision!

This to come to Ethics and Ubermensch, and that they are universial principles:

Ethics:

Post-structuralism and postmodernism argue that the world is relational; therefore, ethics must study the complex situation of actions. A simple alignment of idea of right and particular act is not possible. There will always be a remainder that is part of the ethical issue that cannot be taken into account in a relational world.
Hoy concludes that:

"The ethical resistance of the powerless others to our capacity to exert power over them is therefore what imposes unenforceable obligations on us."

Ubermensch:

For Rüdiger Safranski, the Übermensch represents a higher biological type reached through artificial selection and at the same time is also an ideal for anyone who is creative and strong enough to master the whole spectrum of human potential, good and "evil", to become an "artist-tyrant".In Ecce Homo, Nietzsche vehemently denied any idealistic, democratic or humanitarian interpretation of the Übermensch: "The word Übermensch [designates] a type of supreme achievement, as opposed to 'modern' men, 'good' men, Christians, and other nihilists ... When I whispered into the ears of some people that they were better off looking for a Cesare Borgia than a Parsifal, they did not believe their ears."Safranski argues that the combination of ruthless warrior pride and artistic brilliance that defined the Italian
Renaissance embodied the sense of the Übermensch for Nietzsche.

This theory was always shocking to me, there is no general good, there will be a leading class and a class that has to follow the leaders! Where this leading class was religion, since Nietzsche stated "God is dead", this needs to be taken over by Humans, a leading class, the ubermensch, who set the ethics.

I see the Ubermensch as a successful group of humans that imposes their vision of the world and best usage of resources to master the whole spectrum of human potential, good and "evil", including in this the ethics to think about the powerless, but defining action for the greater good.
This "artist-tyrant" is trying to do the best possible, but will be in conflict with others and will push her vision through, despite the others.

"Imposes their vision of the world and best usage of resources" implies a conflict with all that would have a different vision.


The Übermensch and the Nazis

The term Übermensch was a favourite of the Nazi regime, which borrowed selectively (and superficially) from Nietzsche's work and sought to adopt him as a philosophical mascot. Their conception of the Übermensch, however, was racial in nature, whereas Nietzsche himself was vehemently critical of both antisemitism and German nationalism. The Nazi notion of the master race also spawned the idea of "inferior races" (Untermenschen) which could be dominated and enslaved; this term does not originate with Nietzsche.

So really clear to me in this is that the Nazi abused the theory of Nietzsche.
I do not support German Nazi ethics at all, but why are our modern ethics better, just because they are ours?

I really did not see a lot of people explaining clearly how this wrong Nazi "artist-tyrant" is so different from the other "artist-tyrants".

Just some thoughts of mine:
* the German Nazis killed people. A lot of countries still have death penalty in their law.
* The Nazis did not foresee room for the Jews, Gypsies, not arians, etc.. and although indirect, the western norms do not foresee place for Indians, Amazon forest tribes and Roma, by taking away the essential resources needed for the way they lived.
* the German Nazis grouped people and did not respect individuals. Indians, Amazon forest tribes and Roma are groups, we rarely do actions that only effect one individual of this group.
* the German Nazis used an ethics system that was in disrespect of Human Rights. But who judges our ethics compared to "Indians, Amazon forest tribes and Roma"; actually any group that is "de facto" excluded from our way of getting justice; do we really respect their Human Rights.


So my negative conclusion: The "Artist-tyrant" ubermensch are trying to use ethics in the best way they can.
But till now I did not see sufficient separation between leading classes we call good or bad, to state it is impossible that the current leading class is not completely wrong with their vision (or appreciation) on Ethics.

This still shocks me, even while doing our best, with best intentions, we will still have a doubt if what we do is really the correct thing.
Since we can not understand all visions (collectivist concepts are generally difficult for individualist societies), can not consider everything (bounded rationality) and we act as artist-tyrants that impose their vision of the world and best usage of resources; we can not really avoid a doubt that we might have wrong ethics.

 

[Dotini]

This still shocks me, even while doing our best, with best intentions, we will still have a doubt if what we do is really the correct thing.
Since we can not understand all visions (collectivist concepts are generally difficult for individualist societies), can not consider everything (bounded rationality) and we act as artist-tyrants that impose their vision of the world and best usage of resources; we can not really avoid a doubt that we might have wrong ethics.

Some very interesting thoughts are being discussed here and in the previous pages. Reference to the "social contract" might benefit the discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

For roughly 2 million years, matriarchal hunter/gatherer collectivism served the needs of humanity. For about 10k years, patriarchal agricultural was the successful model as the nation/state system emerged. Now we are testing whether global industrialization combined with liberal individualism can maintain the social contract. The French nation/state has evidently decided that its interests and laws take precedence over modish visions of human rights.

I'm sure our story has some way to go before its finished.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

The French nation/state has evidently decided that its interests and laws take precedence over modish visions of human rights.

France is a strange country, but I still love it. Planning to move there (the department of the Dordogne) in about 15 years.

You have the state with code of arms (Liberty, equality and brotherhood) that seems to be very directive, imposing, regulating and on the other hand the population that is relax, cool, it is not that bad, lay back. The balanced result is actually quite nice to live in.

To defend the French state: They are expatriating people that do not have the correct paperwork to reside in France.

To go against the French state: A circular leaked recently that stated we will try to close down 800 encampments with illegal people, with priority on the Roma.

That last word just killed their credibility.

I'm sure our story has some way to go before its finished.

I believe the only static thing in the story is constant change.

 

[Danoff]

So really clear to me in this is that the Nazi abused the theory of Nietzsche.
I do not support German Nazi ethics at all, but why are our modern ethics better, just because they are ours?

Obviously not.

The problem with a ruling class that can impose their will on others is that you have to value that will above others for some sort of objective reason. I know of no way to accomplish this, and so I am left with the conclusion that all men are "created" equal, and that no man can justly impose his will on another whose rights are intact.

The Nazis were all about the inequality of man, and justification of the subversion of the rights of one group for the sake of some subjectively determined favorite group. This is the leap required to join with Nazi philosophy, and it's the reason many instinctively shy away from their conclusions - because you instinctively know that you can't justify that value judgement.

The rights that I set out stem from the conclusion that men cannot be objectively considered anything but equal. This is what the US constitution is based on, and it's the cornerstone of the civilized world. It's the reason we abolished slavery, the reason women vote, and the reason we clashed with the North American Natives - who did not discover the objective value judgement we place on cognition, and therefore denied each other and us our fundamental rights.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

the reason we clashed with the North American Natives - who did not discover the objective value judgement we place on cognition, and therefore denied each other and us our fundamental rights.

Corrected. Judgement = subjective

I miss some of the North American Natives history, clear that there was some rude justice in their ways.

Still for me, you consider the persons with "value judgement on cognition" as ubermensch over the "North American Natives". The one that imposes the right and best way to the one denying the fundamental rights to all. You do not see their ways as equal.

Not stating this is wrong, just pointing out how the ubermensch works.

However you might not see any "North American Native" as unequal to others, just they need to drop their ways for your ways. Their collective view for your individual view.

1) Best view is not perfect view.
2) How about the right to have their ways, very similar to religious practices. They might not be able to practice these within your ways.

P.S.: I have issues with religious practices like witch burning, cutting off people´s hands, stoning people, offering virgins, etc... there are limits.

 

[Danoff]

Corrected. Judgement = subjective

Not if it's based on objective metrics. The fundamental problem with the North American Natives is that they see any and everything on equal footing with themselves. Their rights are no greater than the rights of a plant, animal, or rock.

The ability to use reason and understand concepts like equality or rights is exactly the reason that plants and animals don't have the same set of rights we do.

Whereas the Nazis are using value judgement that they can't stand behind, the Natives attempted to live without any rights whatsoever. Neither situation properly recognizes the equality of human beings and the fundamental differences between human beings and other living things.

Still for me, you consider the persons with "value judgement on cognition" as ubermensch over the "North American Natives". The one that imposes the right and best way to the one denying the fundamental rights to all. You do not see their ways as equal.

Their ways aren't equal. I don't see the ways of any society that refuses to acknowledge human rights as valid. That doesn't mean that I see them as anything less than human - I just know that their desire to violate human rights is unsupported.

2) How about the right to have their ways, very similar to religious practices. They might not be able to practice these within your ways.

As long as they recognize human rights, I don't care what they do.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Not if it's based on objective metrics.

Judgement = subjective
Metrics = objective

Still I believe most decisions are based on Judgement = subjective, the appreciation of the person deciding.

The discussion on the property rights is for me one of those.

Their ways aren't equal.

In a Famine way: "I did not state they were equal".

I support your view, I believe in the Ubermensch, I believe some have to change to way of others since the others are better.

I'm only stuck on how good we are and if we do not have some points we take to much as set, since they suit us, but they actually hurt others without sufficient justification.

The ability to use reason and understand concepts like equality or rights is exactly the reason that plants and animals don't have the same set of rights we do.

I seem to appose to you on this vision. Probably partially due to my religion and life philosophy that promote a humble approach.

In my thoughts about human rights I saw "Fundamental Human Rights" and "Secondary Human Rights".
"Fundamental Human Rights" from my first feeling this is close to your Human Rights I agree with.
"Secondary Human Rights" from my first feeling this is close to your wish list items in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and your Human Rights I seem to keep discussing.

This reflection has not been finalized, maybe it will never come to a end as long as I think.
It indeed spread out to Animal Rights, Plant rights and Children rights/obligations. That last word still sounds like swearing.

I have read some things about Women rights, but that concept is difficult for me. It should be covered by Human rights.

My thoughts are actually that, for me the "Fundamental Human Rights", "Animal Rights" and "Plant rights" are probably the same.

e.g.: The right to live. For me you should have a very good reason to take away the life from a human, an animal or a plant.

For me secondary is for example the "right on property", like some people left their fortune to their favorite pet, does not make sense to me. Property will create inequality and for that seems not fundamental to Humans for me (very socialist view for myself, I keep surprising myself).

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

I still read in your statements: My thoughts are the best and the rest has to follow them.

Rest = North American Natives, animals, plants

You (and myself on that matter) behave as Ubermensch on this and we should be very careful on our ethics. Have a humble attitude and question yourself. But clearly you need to build on some principles and you can not question everyting all the time (bounded rationality).

e.g.: A foreign person that from birth can not speak. This person does not follow our laws (foreign) and can not protest very well when we try to impose our laws (can not speak). However we seem to agree every person has full Human Rights. The point is "not understanding" and "not protesting" does not equal not having rights, also for animals and plants or people that might miss some essential principles.



I sometimes wonder with stories like the hole in the ozon layer, etc... if nature might not be more powerful then us and if it is not imposing their set of norms on us (change or die).

That to come back to the rocks, still at this stage I do not intend to attribute rights to what we see as not alive matter (we had some discussions about "alive" in the alien thread).


I just added "Social Rights" in my list, still a very immature tough. Social Rights would come with obligations, not as fundamental as Human Rights.
Probably linked to the Social contract, since also that should not change your Human Rights.

 

[Danoff]

I support your view, I believe in the Ubermensch, I believe some have to change to way of others since the others are better.

That is not my view - quite the opposite actually. The only force I am in any way advocating is force in defense of human rights - rights based on the equality of man and the injustice of subverting his will. This is rooted in rationality.

My thoughts are actually that, for me the "Fundamental Human Rights", "Animal Rights" and "Plant rights" are probably the same.

From the very definition of rights, they exist only for those that can comprehend and observe them. This is why animals and plants have a subset or, in many cases, absolutely no rights. The reason rights exist is because of our cognitive abilities to understand why they must. Without that, there are no rights. If you believe that animals, plants and everything living have the same compliment of rights, then you're forced to do away with man's rationality, and without rationality there is no justice, no civilization, and no end to the atrocities that may be permitted.

 

[FoolKiller]

My thoughts are actually that, for me the "Fundamental Human Rights", "Animal Rights" and "Plant rights" are probably the same.

e.g.: The right to live. For me you should have a very good reason to take away the life from a human, an animal or a plant.

Because plants and animals taste good, Is that a good enough reason?

Or does it make me a bad person for thinking that we can actually save many animals from extinction by making it legal to farm and eat them?

 

[Keef]

I'm not so sure plants have any self-awareness to speak of. But I am sure they're not pointing their guns at me, so if I feel like taking that tomato plant's fruit I'm going to take it.

As long as it's my tomato plant and not somebody else's, because if I've stolen somebody else's tomatoes then I've gone and crossed their property rights and that's not nice. Or, wait, am I not allowed to have my own tomato plants growing in my garden? Is that slavery?

I'm pretty sure the idea of self-awareness has been covered at length in this thread previously, but it's fun to do it again. Maybe quote some old posts to get this rolling again? Danoff brushed on it in his last post but I seem to remember a heated discussion on the topic.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

From the very definition of rights, they exist only for those that can comprehend and observe them.

Wikipedia:

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement

Ethically I give rights to a person in Coma. I generally do not believe that these people can "comprehend and observe" those rights.

I do have an issue with how rights and ethics seem to be separated in the statement above.

That is not my view - quite the opposite actually. The only force I am in any way advocating is force in defense of human rights - rights based on the equality of man and the injustice of subverting his will. This is rooted in rationality.

I get very scared of this "equality of man" principle. I prefer: everything is different, you, me, every single person or living creature. Does not change their rights.

Why do I get scared, is sounds more and more like:
1) equality of man = human rights
2) all the rest (with or without self-awareness, principles) I can kick around like I want

For me very close to the Nazi "Untermensch", not respecting the right of every living creature individually.

Also, I'm still convinced you are just in denial about acting as an ubermensch, your human rights, your equality of man principle, your rationality (remember judgment = subjective). That we have to discuss it, seems to me making clear it is not as fixed as you state it.

FoolKiller Because plants and animals taste good, Is that a good enough reason?

I mentioned "Digambara monks" before in other threads, from my knowledge they stop eating when they think their life is not useful anymore, starving themselves to death; this to respect the plants and animals. I see their approach as very correct.

I agree I'm a big sinner myself, I do not feel good about this, but the most correct way of living is impractical in my life space (social rights, secondary rights).

FoolKillerOr does it make me a bad person for thinking that we can actually save many animals from extinction by making it legal to farm and eat them?

I'm actually thinking that we can actually save many animals from extinction by respecting their rights and having the right ethics.

The statement above feels like a patch up after years of abuse of rights and wrong ethics.

Keef But I am sure they're not pointing their guns at me, so if I feel like taking that tomato plant's fruit I'm going to take it.

Very close to the German Nazi thoughts to me, I can kill Jews, so I do it.

e.g. my partner got told of seriously on a walk in the forest to kick a mushroom to pieces, just because it seemed amusing. It is basic value teaching.


The rest of you post is more balanced, I grow a plant or even find it in community grounds, I need it to live, I take it and eat it.
No problem with that, survival of the strongest! Actually many plants expect you to do this to spread their seeds.


Not clear yet to me how survival of the strongest, fits in "equality of man" or "Human rights". Clearly it is a judgment call for the ubermensch.

P.S.: Tomato, fruit or vegetable seems to be a Judgment call I found out recently.

 

[Keef]

Actually many plants expect you to do this to spread their seeds.

Plants don't expect anything, that's the point. Danoff said in his post:

From the very definition of rights, they exist only for those that can comprehend and observe them. This is why animals and plants have a subset or, in many cases, absolutely no rights. The reason rights exist is because of our cognitive abilities to understand why they must. Without that, there are no rights.

Plants don't have a mind, they can't think, they have no self-awareness, they can't learn, they can't any of that. It's not that they don't understand and we should help them out, it's that they can't understand why rights are important. Therefore, they have none. And I eat. The gun comment was a bit of sarcasm brought on by the idea that plants are intelligent beings. If they don't want me taking their veggies then why don't they just get up and leaf?

 

[Danoff]

Wikipedia:

Yea don't bother with wikipedia. If you want a source for rights check the US constitution. It's pretty decent.

Ethically I give rights to a person in Coma. I generally do not believe that these people can "comprehend and observe" those rights.

If they had rights while they were alive those are in play - that doesn't mean the person in the coma won't have the plug pulled. It just also doesn't mean it necessarily will.

There is a similar argument here with dead people. People have rights while they are alive, some of those still have impacts after the person has died. If you set up a will for your belongings, your will still exists after you die as a contract made with someone who had property/contract rights.

Now, can a dead person, or person in a coma, create a NEW contract? No. Are they entitled to force living people to do anything against their will? No.

I do have an issue with how rights and ethics seem to be separated in the statement above.

They should be separated. It doesn't mean ethics don't exist, but rationality is what prescribes rights.

I get very scared of this "equality of man" principle. I prefer: everything is different, you, me, every single person or living creature. Does not change their rights.

Why do I get scared, is sounds more and more like:
1) equality of man = human rights
2) all the rest (with or without self-awareness, principles) I can kick around like I want

It's more like equality of self-awareness actually. But yes, you can kick a plant around however you want. It has no rights since it cannot comprehend or observe rights. Similarly, if a human being demonstrates a lack of comprehension of human rights, that human being is stripped of some of his rights in our society as a result (imprisoned). This is how our society functions, and it functions that way for a reason (rationality), not because it is arbitrary or subjective that murderers aren't entitled to freedom.

For me very close to the Nazi "Untermensch", not respecting the right of every living creature individually.

The issue with the Nazi was the refusal to acknowledge the equality of man. I wouldn't care if the Nazis killed a bunch of ferns or rats. In this country we slaughter cows and corn without violating rights. What I care about is when the Nazis start wiping out consciousness, self-awareness... minds capable of understanding what is being done and why it must be injustice.

Also, I'm still convinced you are just in denial about acting as an ubermensch, your human rights, your equality of man principle, your rationality (remember judgment = subjective). That we have to discuss it, seems to me making clear it is not as fixed as you state it.

It makes it clear that not everyone understands the basis of civilization. It doesn't make it clear to me that I'm wrong. Your lack of understanding will never prove to me that I'm wrong. You're going to have to approach debunking my claims in the language they're written - rationality. I'd suggest to you that you want to fail at this, however, because what I've described is a framework for peace and prosperity.

I mentioned "Digambara monks" before in other threads, from my knowledge they stop eating when they think their life is not useful anymore, starving themselves to death; this to respect the plants and animals. I see their approach as very correct.

That's their right.

I'm actually thinking that we can actually save many animals from extinction by respecting their rights and having the right ethics.

You can value these animals without giving them rights. You can take steps to save them without insisting that building on their land is theft, that harvesting from the plants they eat should land you in prison, that killing one of them is a capitol offense, that a person who kills a roach is a menace to society, that muskrats have a right to government representation and a vote.

e.g. my partner got told of seriously on a walk in the forest to kick a mushroom to pieces, just because it seemed amusing. It is basic value teaching.

Values are not rights. And rights do not preclude them.

The rest of you post is more balanced, I grow a plant or even find it in community grounds, I need it to live, I take it and eat it.
No problem with that, survival of the strongest!

Survival of the strongest would suggest that a stronger man is entitled to my labor. You're advocating injustice (slavery).

Not clear yet to me how survival of the strongest, fits in "equality of man" or "Human rights".

It doesn't. The notion of equality of man is a recognition that the physical ability to coerce is not a justification for that action.