Human Rights

[Famine]

If you look closely, you'll find that I put absolute truth under quote marks. Would you like to take a guess why? That's right, because it's not my word, it's Imari's.

Your words were to add the qualifier "in their respective systems". Something cannot be absolute truth if it depends on other things to be true.

What you and I were discussing was whether or not you can question them at any level. You can't.

It can. We did it.

Obviously if you throw it out there without defining the framework, it can be wrong depending on the system.

Then it can be questioned. We know it can. We did it.

However, since we can all easily guess which framework we're dealing with, we KNOW that it can't be questioned at any level.

Except at the level you literally just described.

Demonstrate how any logical rights system is consistent across all humans.

Logic is independent of humans.

As in, turn it into a law etc

Sorry, why is it beholden on me to demonstrate something I didn't and wouldn't claim?

It was a joke.

And that's why no-one on this site can trust you or converse with you in any way.

 

[Imari]

If you read again, you'll find that I acted like a math god only when you called ME stupid and the other time was after YOU called yourself stupid.

I retracted nothing. It was a joke.

Bull:censored:.

You don't get to go through all that and pretend that it was a joke. Nobody drags a joke out that long and misses any semblance of a punchline. If that's your idea of humour, then there is no possible way that anyone can have a sensible conversation with you.

Just admit that you thought that other people wouldn't understand what you thought they would, and you were wrong.

That you don't seem to understand how the word "absolute" works still makes me dubious about how much you really understand. Is it even possible for someone with a serious knowledge of mathematics to get that so wrong? Even in a second language?

 

[Danoff]

So you believe NOTHING is the absolute truth? Not even your own existence?

That would be the opposite of what I wrote - which is that the statement:

If you're going to be that kid, then yeah of course nothing is the absolute truth

It's wrong though.

See that? Lemme break it down further so there is no chance of miscommunication:

then... nothing is the absolute truth

...wrong...

So you believe NOTHING is the absolute truth?

See that?

Absolute truth + Given a very specific definition of truth = contradiction.

See what I mean?

It's not a specific definition of truth, it's a specific definition of "you". If you don't understand the distinction, ask.

Logic and math themselves can't be questioned. Examples of them can be questioned, but what the WORD ITSELF implies cannot be questioned.

Nope! As previously explained:

Why do you think 1+1=2? Just because every time you add two things together you don't get a third thing popping into existence? How do you know that doesn't happen? Perhaps a third thing appears on the other side of the galaxy every time a human adds two things together. Perhaps our reality is a computer simulation, and every time two things are added together in the REAL reality they disappear. People in that universe, in order to save it from collapsing, created a simulation that they put their brains in of a universe where such a thing doesn't happen - that's where we live.

You have no idea whether 1+1=2. You don't even know that two things exist to add together. You do not know the nature of your universe, so you cannot know if math or logic is correct.

To know whether math and logic apply to our reality, we must understand our reality - which we do not. They can be questioned, and that's how. Let's move on shall we?

It is. This is a paradox

Logic = absolute truth

Applications of logic (decimal arithmetic, rights, whatever) are only absolute truths in a specific framework. Which means they're not absolute truth, and thus not logic itself.

It's only a paradox if you don't understand it. Logic is not absolute truth - it is true if and only if we live in a universe in which logic applies. We think we do, but don't know. That is the level that logic can be questioned on. For example, if a god exists, let's say the Christian God. Logic no longer applies. You might say the following.


If I give a fish to Paul, Paul will have a fish.
I give a fish to Paul.

Conclusion: Paul has a fish.

Perfectly logical. God says "poof" and Paul no longer has a fish. Logic did not hold up. God says "poof", and Paul has 1000 fish.

I decide to count Paul's fish, but every time I add a fish it disappears. Paul has "one... tw... wait... one... tw... wait... one.. tw..." paul has zero fish because every time I count one it disappears. Paul only has fish if I do not count them. As soon as that thought pops into my head, paul has zero fish. I try to count paul's fish, and every time I try, Paul has one more fish. Paul has zero... wait... one... wait... two... wait... three... it is impossible to count Paul's fish. Paul has infinite fish, and as soon as that thought pops into my head there are so many fish that the gravity of the fish causes them to collapse in on themselves into a black hole so massive that it destroys the universe. God creates a new universe as though that never happened, and recreates me and paul exactly as before with memories of the moment that the black hole occurred.

I try to count Paul's fish. Paul has one fish, but every time I think of paul's fish, a giraffe appears.

All of this is possible through Christ. To admit the mere possibility that a God with the powers attributed to the Christian God exists, is to admit that logic may not apply to our universe - and so does not represent truth. God can accomplish all, including destroying logic (in fact, Christians believe that he did just that). So, I'll say this one last time, no logic is not absolute truth. It can be doubted. But it is the next best thing to absolute truth.

 

[Danoff]

I found this video to be really excellent. It addresses a slightly different topic, but it touches on this one as well. I imagine many people here misunderstand my positions on human rights enough to think that this video substantially contradicts me. To the contrary, almost no word of it contradicts anything I've posted here on human rights. And that's a rare enough find, that I thought it was worth posting:

 

[Keef]

I'm taking an ethics class right now and the teacher is awesome and the material is hella interesting. I heard something the other day I wanted to drop in here but I forgot what it was.

Basically the format of the class so far has been to read things from the beginning of ethics, basically narrowing down thousands of years of ethical investigation into one semester. I like it. I play along, even though I think my beliefs are on the advanced spectrum which we haven't gotten to yet. Plus, it gives me some perspective as to where my beliefs came from and how humanity in general got to this point in the investigation.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Perfectly logical. God says "poof" and Paul no longer has a fish. Logic did not hold up. God says "poof", and Paul has 1000 fish.

I decide to count Paul's fish, but every time I add a fish it disappears. Paul has "one... tw... wait... one... tw... wait... one.. tw..." paul has zero fish because every time I count one it disappears. Paul only has fish if I do not count them. As soon as that thought pops into my head, paul has zero fish. I try to count paul's fish, and every time I try, Paul has one more fish. Paul has zero... wait... one... wait... two... wait... three... it is impossible to count Paul's fish. Paul has infinite fish, and as soon as that thought pops into my head there are so many fish that the gravity of the fish causes them to collapse in on themselves into a black hole so massive that it destroys the universe. God creates a new universe as though that never happened, and recreates me and paul exactly as before with memories of the moment that the black hole occurred.

I try to count Paul's fish. Paul has one fish, but every time I think of paul's fish, a giraffe appears.

Which is the difficulty in the God .vs. Science argument, by describing a quantum, anti-cartesian universe in pretty much the same way as both camps.

To rely on logical, temporal summaries is to err.

 

[Keef]

I forgot about this thread and since my post didn't get any attention in the Libertarian Party thread I'm putting it here. This is a more appropriate place anyway.

Frederick Douglass: Migration is, and always has been, a fundamental human right

It never has been and it never will be. I'm not sure what ethical basis leads people to declare that every ****ing thing is a "fundamental" human right.

I'm not sure what ethical basis leads people to declare that every ****ing thing is a "fundamental" human right.

See http://openborders.info/right-to-migrate/ and http://openborders.info/libertarian/

I've also never heard of a libertarian who considers any positive rights to be "natural" human rights. Positive rights - a right to safe food, clean water, healthcare, or migration, etc - necessarily imply action is due by others to the right holder. But as any good libertarian knows, this is contrary to the idea of liberty, a negative right, which protects a person from coercion by others. To posit a right of one to go wherever he chooses without permission would be to disregard the rights of others to stay where they are without accomodation. Basically, a right to migration would directly threaten the rights of liberty and property of those wherever a migrant may go, just like rights to food, water and healthcare would.

You could argue it'd be a form of slavery - somebody must provide said food, water, healthcare, or place for the migrant to go, and because these things are rights they must be provided without compensation and possibly against one's will. And that's just no good. I've never heard of a libertarian who would support that.

A much better method would be to simply make it easier for migrants to achieve permission to migrate. Make it easy for them to get visas or attain citizenship, both of which are effectively contractual agreements, a type of agreement which libertarians thoroughly support.

I'm not seeing but a hint of libertarianism in the idea of completely open borders. It seems to have a heavily anarchist bent to me, an idea which no libertarian supports because they understand how thoroughly unsustainable and unfree a condition of anarchy is. The fact that the Wikipedia article on "free migration" cites the UDHR for justification hurts the idea's credibility even further - if a single libertarian in the world supports the UDHR then they clearly misunderstand what they believe in.

I could argue a truer libertarian view on immigration by linking the issue on the Libertarian Party's website but I suppose that would be no less biased than Open Borders attempting to make a libertarian argument for open borders.

I should probably start studying for my ethics final.

Link to Reddit thread

Anyways, I'm kind of disappointed none of you, @Danoff @FoolKiller @Famine have presented the idea of positive and negative rights before. After all, humans have a right to knowledge, right, which means ya'll owed me this. I had the general idea but this turns it into a formal concept that is easily explainable. Thank god for this ethics class because now I can explain my positions much more thoroughly.

I also said this in that thread:

I didn't say that - I said I don't believe a right to migrate is a natural right. I strongly support life, liberty and property. But the difference between life, liberty, property, and other "rights" such as free migration, healthy food, clean water or healthcare is that the former three are negative rights while the latter four are positive rights.

Negative rights do not allow something of the right holder, they disallow something of others. For example, the right to liberty does not allow you make any choice you want, it disallows others from preventing you to make choices. The right to life does not allow you to live, it disallows others from preventing you to live. You can see how these ideas were developed to keep governments - and by definition, people - from oppressing others. The purpose of negative rights is to promote freedom by limiting oppression. Logically, these rights do not conflict with one another.

But positive rights imply that action is due by others to the right holder. For example, a right to clean water implies that somebody must clean the water and provide it for you. The right to it means that you are entitled to it which means that those providing it must do so without compensation and possibly against their will. A right to healthcare implies that somebody must give you healthcare, and a right to migrate implies that somebody must allow you to migrate. They might even have to move from where they currently live to make room for you - after all, it is your right to move there. While a positive right can merely allow you to go above and beyond the call of duty, they can also be used in a Robin Hood-like manner because they conflict with negative rights.

The UDHC, the UN's bogus list of "human rights" is chock full of positive rights (though not all are positive) which would require people to risk their life, liberty and property to provide for others. And that is what we call slavery. I don't know of any libertarian who thinks anybody should be required to give what they have to others without compensation or some sort of contractual agreement.

A right to migrate would be inherently immoral.

And somebody questioned why I said it would be immoral so I realized I worded that statement poorly and said this:

My thought process was that If taken literally, the phrase "right to migrate" would imply a positive right or an entitlement. This opens the opportunity for it to conflict with natural rights of others, particularly liberty and property, and that would be immoral.

But now that you pinpoint it I suppose the phrasing doesn't really matter because it's no different than saying "right to liberty" or whatever. Semantics. I guess the only thing that matters is the positive/negative distinction.

 

[LeMansAid]

I should probably start studying for my ethics final.

This cracked me up, but then I realised that it seems you may not have re-typed it.

Anyways, I'm kind of disappointed none of you, @Danoff @FoolKiller @Famine have presented the idea of positive and negative rights before.

It is indeed a very simple kind of massive, and I'll admit to not having had that filing system in my brain.

Life and liberty for me are pretty straight forward, but property (in the land sense) is an ongoing cud chew as far as what I think of it in terms of rights. Considering that, I won't comment on the migration side of things, as it would be dependent on having formed a fully realised view of property (land) rights.

Note - When Australians read "property" it's quite likely that they will automatically think land and not necessarily possessions.

If anyone has the impetus, I'm interested in thoughts on how land rights are viewed in terms of going from the first person to step on to a land, to the first person(s) to work it, to how the majority of the world is now divided up.

 

[Dotini]

If anyone has the impetus, I'm interested in thoughts on how land rights are viewed in terms of going from the first person to step on to a land, to the first person(s) to work it, to how the majority of the world is now divided up.

That's a huge question. Series of questions, really.

Here and now, we usually buy it, or otherwise acquire title, from the previous owner.

 

[BobK]

...until the state steals it back via eminent domain.

 

[LeMansAid]

That's a huge question. Series of questions, really.

Here and now, we usually buy it, or otherwise acquire title, from the previous owner.

Just seems like quite an awkward fit alongside life and liberty. I understand the consideration of investments in working the land (which in many cases could be construed as destroying it), but the effort to reach it may have already been a greater investment by another. If the first human to reach Australia put immense amounts of thought and work in to making it to the land, how much does that "buy" them? The whole island? Then, does another who comes along years later and throws some seed around somehow supersede in ownership? Seems that it's difficult enough to find what's subjectively fair, let alone be able to apply objectivity to land rights.

I'd love to know the equation that is meant to be applied in order to reach an objective stand point.

The really crazy thing is thinking about how many stolen possessions we may have, considering that way too many of them may have come from stolen land.

 

[TenEightyOne]

"Land" as property seems like a restriction of the right to travel - it's effectively a form of border control, which (in my opinion) is bad.

 

[Dotini]

Possession is commonly taken as nine-tenths of the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

The case of the Elgin marbles is a good case in point. A long time ago the priceless statues were looted from the Parthenon by the British. https://news.yahoo.com/british-museum-loans-elgin-marbles-1st-time-091139777.html

So if you take something and make it stick, it is yours; a variation on the theme of "might makes right".

--------------

Traveling is not a right. To think that is a delusion. It is an activity that takes money, organization, effort and often great risk.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So if you take something and make it stick, it is yours; a variation on the theme of "might makes right".

If I stand on a piece of bare land and ask you not to come near me then I'm asking you to observe my right to privacy. If I ask you not to come near me because I have prepared the land with my own work and resources then I'm asking you to respect my property and work-done. The land it stands on is, to my mind, not relevant, the work-done and value-added are the important things.

 

[Dotini]

In Texas, mineral rights supersede surface rights.

In other words, if you own and live on your improved land, as a mineral rights owner I can enter your property, build roads, pits and a well-site, drill and extract minerals, oil and gas.

 

[LeMansAid]

The cavalry didn't arrive soon enough, so searched out an undead horseman.

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

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

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

It seems like a very culturally based principle to me. Can't say I'm all too keen on the idea of simply giving up my properties to Aboriginal people, but I also don't see living on the land without significantly altering it as accumulating zero interest in it. Got anything that you could help convince me with?

 

[Danoff]

In Texas, mineral rights supersede surface rights.

In other words, if you own and live on your improved land, as a mineral rights owner I can enter your property, build roads, pits and a well-site, drill and extract minerals, oil and gas.

This is a contract freely entered into by the person who purchases such a property.

The cavalry didn't arrive soon enough, so searched out an undead horseman.


It seems like a very culturally based principle to me. Can't say I'm all too keen on the idea of simply giving up my properties to Aboriginal people, but I also don't see living on the land without significantly altering it as accumulating zero interest in it. Got anything that you could help convince me with?

It's not a matter of interest, it's a matter of transformation. Whether someone obtains unowned resources can definitely have an effect on you, and you can have an interest in that process. I have an interest in whether google releases a new tablet, that doesn't give me any rights to their efforts.

The notion that transforming unowned resources through your labor can inseparably mix your labor and therefore create ownership (due to your ownership of your labor) is not a culturally based principle, it's based on reason.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The notion that transforming unowned resources through your labor can inseparably mix your labor and therefore create ownership (due to your ownership of your labor) is not a culturally based principle, it's based on reason.

Given that the above is true...

This is a contract freely entered into by the person who purchases such a property (reference Dotini's Mineral Rights)

...how were those "mineral rights" available for sale?

 

[Danoff]

Given that the above is true...



...how were those "mineral rights" available for sale?

All owned resources can be sold.

 

[TenEightyOne]

All owned resources can be sold.

Accepted. How were those resources "owned"?

 

[Danoff]

Accepted. How were those resources "owned"?

You can acquire natural resources by mixing your labor with unowned natural resources.

 

[LeMansAid]

This is a contract freely entered into by the person who purchases such a property.



It's not a matter of interest, it's a matter of transformation. Whether someone obtains unowned resources can definitely have an effect on you, and you can have an interest in that process. I have an interest in whether google releases a new tablet, that doesn't give me any rights to their efforts.

The notion that transforming unowned resources through your labor can inseparably mix your labor and therefore create ownership (due to your ownership of your labor) is not a culturally based principle, it's based on reason.

in·ter·est
/ˈint(ə)rəst/
4. a stake, share, or involvement in an undertaking, especially a financial one.

You're saying that without transformation there is no accumulated interest in land. People in some cultures tend not to transform the land they live on. I can accept that it's your view, but won't accept that the human race cannot do better than that.

What contitutes transformation anyway?

Coincidentally from a film revolving around rights to a property.

 

[Keef]

This is a contract freely entered into by the person who purchases such a property.

The way @Dontini proposed it makes it sound not like a matter of contract but a matter of law. He suggests a mineral rights owner can enter your land without any persmission from you and there's nothing you can do about it because the law upholds his mineral rights above your property rights.

I think that's bogus. I think it should definitely be a contractual thing but he's suggesting it isn't.

 

[LeMansAid]

I agree @Keef, and that's the way I read it. Correct spelling of @Dotini will better get the attention of our resident mafia boss. Fitting though that Don Tini was talking about an offer that one could not refuse.

 

[Dotini]

I agree @Keef, and that's the way I read it. Correct spelling of @Dotini will better get the attention of our resident mafia boss. Fitting though that Don Tini was talking about an offer that one could not refuse.

"mafia boss"!

I'm off to a fencing lesson, so I'll get back with y'all later.

 

[Dotini]

The way @Dontini proposed it makes it sound not like a matter of contract but a matter of law. He suggests a mineral rights owner can enter your land without any persmission from you and there's nothing you can do about it because the law upholds his mineral rights above your property rights.

I think that's bogus. I think it should definitely be a contractual thing but he's suggesting it isn't.

I've worked in over 40 county courthouses in the State of Texas, researching mineral ownership in various oil and gas leases. This was back in 70's, and I made ton of money buying mineral rights and selling them to a driller, reserving a royalty on future production. In all these court houses, the title to land, and the minerals beneath, goes back to the Spanish Land Grant. Over time - especially after oil was discovered - sellers of land tended to sell only the surface rights, but retain mineral rights in hopes of a gusher, should an oilman be so motivated to drill his lease. My mission was to buy unleased mineral interests of a likely prospect. Anyway, mineral rights in Texas became progressively divorced from surface rights. A driller can enter onto the surface to dig his pits and produce his minerals, but of course he pays for any damages incurred. This is Texas law, but its similar elsewhere.

 

[Keef]

Yup, bogus @Dotini. My initial take on the situation is that land rights go straight to the middle of the planet and anything anybody wants to do under the surface should require a contractual agreement with the land owner. This would also solve the problem of drilling sideways through others' land. If you cross that imaginary plane to the center of the earth, you gotta pay up. Yes, this would be intensely complicated for oil companies and whatnot but if they really want full access to the land they should have to own it. Pretty simple concept it seems to me.

 

[LeMansAid]

Spanish Land Grant.

Without knowing anything much about it really, is that a situation where the original inhabitants get access to nothing, the interim inhabitants get access to the underground, and the currant inhabitants get access to the surface?

ie. Old Mexicans, new Mexicans, Americans.

 

[Dotini]

Without knowing anything much about it really, is that a situation where the original inhabitants get access to nothing, the interim inhabitants get access to the underground, and the currant inhabitants get access to the surface?

ie. Old Mexicans, new Mexicans, Americans.

I have a really neat book of Texas rock art dating to maybe 6000BC. Those folks have vanished, and so have most subsequent native Americans who dwelled there in the harsh climate. They get nothing but our admiration. History happened and Texas became an independent Republic, later incorporated into the US of A. Texans benefited from the Spanish Land Grant especially if they held on to their mineral rights while selling the surface. To this very day I receive royalty income on mineral rights I leased way back when. The surface owners could have changed numerous times since then.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I have a really neat book of Texas rock art dating to maybe 6000BC. Those folks have vanished, and so have most subsequent native Americans who dwelled there in the harsh climate. They get nothing but our admiration. History happened and Texas became an independent Republic, later incorporated into the US of A. Texans benefited from the Spanish Land Grant especially if they held on to their mineral rights while selling the surface.

Nothing to do with Human Rights but minerals and such, have you ever been to Inner Space Cavern in Georgetown? They were drilling the land to make Interstate 35 and broke through into an elaborate set of underground caves. Very cool place.