Human Rights

[BobK]

So now we're at the point of starving inmates to force them into working?

Not at all. They'd simply be given a choice: "If you work, you eat. If you don't work, you don't eat. The choice is yours."

Note this is the exact same choice I had to make through most of my adult life, and I'm not even a criminal.

Would you really want to live in a country that denied inmates access to healthcare or food? Do you really think that is a good direction to be heading in?

Nobody's denying anybody anything, and I don't know why you brought health care into it. I don't see why I have an obligation to provide food to criminals, so I don't really see that as denying anything to anybody.

 

[Dotini]

There seem to be a lot of liberals in the US that say health care and food are basic human rights that should by implication be guaranteed by government and taxpayers.

Conservatives, as so badly represented by the Republican party, are seriously divided and severely disorganized at the moment. Really, they are still in circular firing squad mode since '08.

It's often said politics is war by other means, and that winners write the laws and the histories. So if the losers' values and arguments are lost to word and memory, then it may very well be true that food and health care are or will become human rights. So far there is no mention of water.

It is ironical that anthropologists agree that isolated primitive tribes accord food and health care, meager though they may be, to village idiots and chiefs alike. Whereas in sophisticated developed societies, overlain by notions of competition and individualism, food and health care must be fought over or paid for.

 

[Slash]

Not at all. They'd simply be given a choice: "If you work, you eat. If you don't work, you don't eat. The choice is yours."

Note this is the exact same choice I had to make through most of my adult life, and I'm not even a criminal.



Nobody's denying anybody anything, and I don't know why you brought health care into it. I don't see why I have an obligation to provide food to criminals, so I don't really see that as denying anything to anybody.

This is basically what I was getting at. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

It is ironical that anthropologists agree that isolated primitive tribes accord food and health care, meager though they may be, to village idiots and chiefs alike. Whereas in sophisticated developed societies, overlain by notions of competition and individualism, food and health care must be fought over or paid for.

It's a matter of scale and progress. Work meant getting food, or working toward getting food, or fashioning tools. Today, if all anyone did was farm and hunt or make things to farm and hunt no resources would be left and you would be left with only the sick and elderly to provide aid to. Today one man can produce food for hundreds or thousands. Progress in farming eliminated the need for everyone to be involved and removed the need for the dangerous and inconsistent hunting. So, now a majority of the population can do anything else, and need to find something to trade with the farmer. Not everyone is involved in some way and now they are no longer entitled to a share of food.

Then from a scale perspective, when you have a few hundred people and one or two dozen hunters and only a handful of genetics lines it becomes a matter of survival just to keep the tribe going. A single death of a young, healthy member could greatly affect everyone. Now we are millions. Now we are spread across entire continents. A banker in New York doesn't even know a homeless man died in LA.

That is why local community voluntary aid is much more effective and accepted. Even a cause head has no clue how much tragedy surrounds them outside their personal bubble. People can support taxation to fund any and all causes, but only on a local level can all aspects be addressed. And most people want to be sure the local guy is taken care of, or at least given the chance to straighten out his life.

 

[Danoff]

It is ironical that anthropologists agree that isolated primitive tribes accord food and health care, meager though they may be, to village idiots and chiefs alike. Whereas in sophisticated developed societies, overlain by notions of competition and individualism, food and health care must be fought over or paid for.

In the US, we give out free food and health care to the most unable members of our society that puts whatever they gave their village idiots to shame. We did so before obama care.

A banker in New York doesn't even know a homeless man died in LA.

If a homeless man died in LA it's because he was too drunk, high or insane to use one of the bazillions of psychiatric hospitals or homeless shelters and clinics giving out free food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Not at all. They'd simply be given a choice: "If you work, you eat. If you don't work, you don't eat. The choice is yours."

Note this is the exact same choice I had to make through most of my adult life, and I'm not even a criminal.

Which is using a position of power (control over food supply) to force them to work, which is slavery. You can't starve inmates to persuade them to work.

As I've just discovered, in the U.S, you can punish inmates for refusing to work. You also do not need to pay them for their labour, although they are often paid a small amount.

If that is the honest truth, then I am sorry that you have had such a rough life. You must realise, though, that in the modern, developed world, that that kind of life is the exception, and not the rule. If a person in need can't find a charity willing to help them in the U.K or U.S, then they must be either incredibly lazy, or stupid, or both.

Nobody's denying anybody anything, and I don't know why you brought health care into it. I don't see why I have an obligation to provide food to criminals, so I don't really see that as denying anything to anybody.

You don't have an obligation personally but, by law, prisons do have an obligation to provide food and healthcare free of charge. Once the government takes your tax money, they can do whatever they like with it, including feed prisoners and provide them with healthcare.

 

[Keef]

You don't have an obligation personally but, by law, prisons do have an obligation to provide food and healthcare free of charge. Once the government takes your tax money, they can do whatever they like with it, including feed prisoners and provide them with healthcare.

This is an issue of involuntary tax collection which itself is a form of slavery.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

This is an issue of involuntary tax collection which itself is a form of slavery.

If you don't like paying tax, there are places that you can move to where you don't have to. As this is a discussion about what is/are and isn't/aren't acceptable punishment/conditions for prison inmates, it would be nice to keep it that way.

 

[Keef]

How are their arrangements paid for? With tax. Usually involuntary tax that can't be avoided, and even worse is only paid by a portion of the population. My point is that while prison inmates and forced to do things against their will at risk of violent punishment, the rest of us are too. The only difference is that we haven't violated any lives, liberties or properties in order to deserve it. So, who is getting the short end of this stick?

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

I'm not interested in discussing anything other than what I stated in my previous post, so I'll leave others to answer your question.

 

[Slash]

If you don't like paying tax, there are places that you can move to where you don't have to.

Because everyone can afford to pick up everything and move, let alone leave everything behind

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Because everyone can afford to pick up everything and move, let alone leave everything behind

Put simply, put up or shut up. If Keef has a problem with paying taxes, he should do something about it. If it bothers him that much, you'd think that moving elsewhere would be totally worthwhile.

 

[playnthru]

I'll state again..In many US states inmates that work are paid, not well, but paid nonetheless.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

I'll state again..In many US states inmates that work are paid, not well, but paid nonetheless.

As has already been said. I'm not completely sure what your point is.

 

[Danoff]

Put simply, put up or shut up. If Keef has a problem with paying taxes, he should do something about it. If it bothers him that much, you'd think that moving elsewhere would be totally worthwhile.

This a fallacious (but common) argument which can be used to justify anything. If the Israelis don't like us murdering them by launching explosives into the homes of innocent families, let them leave. You'd think if it bothered them that much, moving elsewhere would be totally worthwhile.

If the Jews don't like being rounded up and exterminated, they should have left when they had the chance...

If blacks don't like separate but equal doctrines, or being persecuted by police, or the occasional lynching, let them find another country to live in....

If gays want to marry, let them move to a country where gay marriage is legal...

If people want to drink alcohol or smoke pot, let them move to a country where drinking alcohol or smoking pot is legal...

This is the point of human rights. You can't sweep the entire concept of human rights under the rug by placing the blame on the victim for not getting out of the way of rights violations.

 

[Keef]

I'm not interested in discussing anything other than what I stated in my previous post, so I'll leave others to answer your question.

My point is exceedingly relevant to this discussion, as it focuses on a core problem with your argument.

There is no sense in discussing the humane treatment of inmates who already lost the majority of their rights and landed themselves in prison because they willingly violated rights of others. It is more relevant to discuss rights violations perpetrated on people who have done nothing wrong to deserve it. The general public is subject to many more and more severe rights violations than inmates, and if the general public does not submit to these violations they often succumb to violent punishment such as SWAT teams brandishing military-style assault weapons and tactics.

Now, if you'll drop the European-style perspective, take a step back and consider the big picture instead of a single piece this discussion might actually get somewhere.

 

[playnthru]

As has already been said. I'm not completely sure what your point is.

You said it's slavery? Forcing people to work?

Society does that everyday, why not the prison system. They are often getting paid (1).. (2) Criminals are there to pay a debt to society. Notice the word pay..They are in debt to society, they owe society something. The point in punishment is to (pay back) that debt.

Are they forced to pay back what they owe society...Otherwise it's called camp.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

This is the point of human rights. You can't sweep the entire concept of human rights under the rug by placing the blame on the victim for not getting out of the way of rights violations.

My original post was more getting at Keef quite regularly moaning about paying taxes, and not victims of genocides not getting out while they still could being their fault...

Put up or shut up was more in jest, as I had already stated that I had no interest in discussing taxes.

Now, if you'll drop the European-style perspective, take a step back and consider the big picture instead of a single piece this discussion might actually get somewhere.

So there's no point in discussing a smaller issue while bigger related issues exist? Right.

Which part of "I'm not interested" did you not understand? I'm not looking for a discussion about the 'big picture' right now, so replying to me is a waste of keystrokes. As for making assumptions about my perspective, well, you know what they say...

You said it's slavery? Forcing people to work?

Society does that everyday, why not the prison system. They are often getting paid (1).. (2) Criminals are there to pay a debt to society. Notice the word pay..They are in debt to society, they owe society something. The point in punishment is to (pay back) that debt.

Are they forced to pay back what they owe society...Otherwise it's called camp.

As I said before, society doesn't force you to work. You can get by without working, although you'll have to forget the standard of living that you were used to while you had a job.

That debt is paid in time and loss of freedoms, not in physical labour. That is why sentences are given in years and months and not dollars owed, and prisons are prisons and not diamond mines.

 

[playnthru]

Idle hands do the devils work! Err, something like that at least. Inmates left with nothing but time will go crazy. Working teaches them something, perhaps a trade. Provides some income for commissary. Perhaps a savings if released?

We also have the concept of restitution here. Often part of criminals sentence does include a dollar amount.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Personally, I see anything but hard, menial labour as rehabilitation rather than punishment, not that that's a bad thing.

 

[Famine]

So there's no point in discussing a smaller issue while bigger related issues exist? Right.

Yes and no.

Focussing on the small issue might fix that small issue, but if it's not part of a bigger program of issue fixing it'll be a fruitless endeavour.

The concept of rights (and indeed responsibilities) is so fundamental that it's a subject that needs addressing as a whole, at first principles - and then the smaller issues correct themselves. In this instance we're talking about punishing - and, yes, rehabilitating - those who ignore their responsibilities to respect our rights, but the bigger picture is that there are grosser violations of our rights by larger bodies and more people that even encompass how we punish and rehabilitate rights violaters which go unaddressed and uncorrected.

Address those and correct them and the minutiae of single issues will be addressed and corrected too.

 

[Dotini]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/justi...ment-camps-could-happen-again/article/2543424

Justice Antonin Scalia predicts that the Supreme Court will eventually authorize another a wartime abuse of civil rights such as the internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II.


"You are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again," Scalia told the University of Hawaii law school while discussing Korematsu v. United States, the ruling in which the court gave its imprimatur to the internment camps.

The local Associated Press report quotes Scalia as using a Latin phrase that means "in times of war, the laws fall silent," to explain why the court erred in that decision and will do so again.

"That's what was going on — the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot," Scalia said. "That's what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It's no justification but it is the reality."

 

[BobK]

I'm afraid I agree with Justice Scalia.

 

[Dotini]

"Avi Soifer, the law school's dean, said he believed Scalia was suggesting people always have to be vigilant and that the law alone can't be trusted to provide protection."
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/...n_happen_again_Scalia_warns.html?id=243454461

 

[Carlos]

"Avi Soifer, the law school's dean, said he believed Scalia was suggesting people always have to be vigilant and that the law alone can't be trusted to provide protection."
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/...n_happen_again_Scalia_warns.html?id=243454461

How can the law alone protect? I also highly doubt a situation like that will happen again in a country like America. Europa is also a small probability, the population is very mixed up and we haven't forgotten WW2. I think we have to fear China, we really don't want a situation with China. Not sure about North Korea, they really want and need technology. There are some universities who teach classes English and also teach classes about how to work in the business world, in English. Downside is these students are mostly children from highly ranked people, you could say Koreas elites. And they still don't teach about culture or anything that has to do with it.

 

[FoolKiller]

I also highly doubt a situation like that will happen again in a country like America.

Don't be so sure. The current House Intelligence Committee chairman has suggested reporters be arrested in connection to NSA leaks.

Speaking of NSA, no one wanted to believe that was happening before Snowden. People who claimed it was happening were brushed off as conspiracy nuts. That isn't supposed to happen in the United States, neither are many things we hear of law enforcement doing, or the way we use drones. But now we have cameras and Internet on all our gadgets. We see what really happens today, and what law enforcement think they can get away with, so long as no camera is around.

What happens if they believe in, or claim to, a security threat and set stuff up where our connected gadgets can't reach?

 

[Dotini]

Don't be so sure. The current House Intelligence Committee chairman has suggested reporters be arrested in connection to NSA leaks.

Speaking of NSA, no one wanted to believe that was happening before Snowden. People who claimed it was happening were brushed off as conspiracy nuts. That isn't supposed to happen in the United States, neither are many things we hear of law enforcement doing, or the way we use drones. But now we have cameras and Internet on all our gadgets. We see what really happens today, and what law enforcement think they can get away with, so long as no camera is around.

What happens if they believe in, or claim to, a security threat and set stuff up where our connected gadgets can't reach?

There is obviously some level of break-down in the trust of government (at several levels) currently taking place in the US. But trust in government and in each other is an absolute prerequisite for our free and democratic way of life here in the good, old US of A. So we have a contradiction, a paradox, and a problem.

 

[LeMansAid]

From the first page of this thread:

I think a person should have a right to die just as they have the right to live. I don't know if the right to life is self-explanatory, but I think you should be able to kill yourself if you feel like it.

In response to the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman:

Anybody who leaves their family behind to satisfy a drug addiction has a frail mind. If you can't sit there in rehab and look at your family and convince yourself to straighten up then you're selfish and weak. I know people who have done exactly that and they've never turned back. You gotta handle your business, man, cause you got some little kids that need your help.

If taking one's own life when kids are in the picture can be considered equal to or worse than having a drug habit absorb it, does having dependants reduce an individual's rights, or just make them more of a prick if they exercise that particular right?

 

[Keef]

If taking one's own life when kids are in the picture can be considered equal to or worse than having a drug habit absorb it, does having dependants reduce an individual's rights, or just make them more of a prick if they exercise that particular right?

That post of mine was from 2006. I was still in high school. I've learned a lot about the subject of human rights and have had a lot of life experience since then. My views and understanding have changed considerably.

I think it's arguable that having children "reduces" the rights of a parent. For example, a baby surely has a right to life because it will eventually grow up and be capable of understanding the concept of life. But it has no way to protect its own life. It depends on its parents to protect it. So effectively the parent not only has their own rights but is also in charge of the baby's rights. Which one of these is more powerful than the other I'm not sure but it's undeniable that a parent can be morally wrong for neglecting their child, thus we have laws that govern such circumstances.

Whether a person has dependents or outstanding contracts, if they take their own life that definitely makes them a prick. It was their life and they're the only ones in charge of it though.

 

[Agent_47]

What rights do human beings have and why?




Guidelines:
1) Try to prevent your list of rights from being inherently conflicting. Example: "I think human beings should have the right to kill people, but also have the right not to be killed"
2) The US bill of rights might help get you started
3) Be sure not to forget the "why" portion of this - which is what makes this question difficult.
4) Be sure to examine the impact of your reasoning on whether animals also have rights.

Life, liberty and property; along with the means to defend all three in the best way possible.