Im All For
DS1119
Posts: 33,497
individual rights
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
DS1119
Posts: 33,497
Comments
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Fundamental human rights (ie right to life)?
Government established rights (which can be given or taken away)?
Your 'individual rights' may infringe on mine - what then?
Wow, couldn't see that coming...
And the American concept of individual rights primarily comes through the ideals of John Locke. And the study of John Locke provides that infringing or violating another persons rights is not in keeping with the ideals of classic liberal thought.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
there are a bunch of individual "liberal" rights you don't agree with
some of them even the constitution was almost amnended to deny said right.
so by rights you mean don't touch my guns.
yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwww
He was a great thinker and a great philosopher.
But it would still be interesting to hear what DS (or others) see as their 'individual' rights. Fundamental or 'acquired'. Whether they deem these indidividual rights are valid for them anywhere/anytime or just where they happen to live at the time.
Though I do suspect I know which 'individual' rights the OP is speaking about....
But it from a few posts already, it would seem that it's just going to quickly go down that downward spiral that certain threads have gone down.
If you are interested in 'properly' discussing individual rights, maybe it can be another thread?
Or maybe some can leave their animosity and passive agressive stance elsewhere and this thread can continue?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I am against asshats who can't handle their individual rights responsibly.
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
"Kfsbho&$thncds" - F Me In the Brain - circa 2015
I believe guns, drugs, and unchecked corporatism infringes on individual rights.
I think this could be a great discussion! Again, very philosophical, in the same vein as some of our discussions prior to the sad happenings of last week. Perhaps others could leave their negativity at the door and participate in a real discussion of rights? Here's a thought:
Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all
men, yet every man has a “property” in his own “person.” This nobody
has any right to but himself. The “labour” of his body and the “work” of
his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes
out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his
labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby
makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state
Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that
excludes the common right of other men. For this “labour” being the
unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right
to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good
left in common for others.
This is from Locke's Second Treatise and it creates an interesting question. Property is one of our individual rights but what makes property individual and not common? From this passage of Locke's, it seems as if we have to make it ours, not by taking it but by working for it. So if I am to claim property as mine then don't I have to show that I have mixed my labor with the property to "earn" it? Locke goes on to state that if you put in the labor then in part that makes it no longer part of the common but then part of the individual. Therefore, property is but one right. Of course, we can poke holes in whether or not paying for something makes it our property as well.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Locke says that all property belongs to nature (therefore the common - equally available to all) until an individual lays claims. How he justified this individual claim (and right) is via individual labour but also with some 'caveat' that property gained being for the good of the collective. He professed that excess accumulation of individual property is wasteful though what one has gained as an individual (pursuing the fundamental rights of liberty,etc,), a government cannot take away. But with the creation of the monetary system, what used to be equal rights for all essentially created unequality.
This is very basically explained but it is an example of where individual rights can impede on someone else's individual right. I'm not talking about 'some work/some don't - so some have/some don't' but on the laying of claim.
But then, whilst I think Locke is a great thinker, he was what one would call now a serious capitalist, he had slaves (going against his fundamental principles) and justified taking the land of the native americans in his works, contradicting a lot of his other pieces. He was still a hypocrite and a racist.
But whilst property is one example, what about the right to life? Fundamental individual right one would say. One that shouldn't be taken away from any individual (unless such individual agrees to it..). Would my individual right to life supersede someone elses? If so why? If considered such a fundamental individual right, can one justify the death penalty as punishment or for the 'good of the collective'?
Personally, I think we all fool ourselves thinking we have any 'control' over our rights - fundamental or acquired. All rights are relative.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Mayday10 - "guns, drugs, unchecked corporatism infringes on individual rights" Which of your rights to they infringe on? Drugs... can do good for some. Corporatism - are you talking about economic tripartism? If so, does that infringe your 'property' right?
Real personal responsibility would be the ultimate.
Agreed. We hear so much about rights, but just because we have the right to do something does not mean we necessarily should, would or need to do it.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I think posts like this need to start being called out for what they are.
Not only does this type of post violate guidlines, it also takes away from the spirit of the thread (whatever it might be) and can also serve to diminish the poster's own respectability.
I'm not picking on you, I'm just calling to light a type of unwarranted ugliness that I've seen creeping into alot of AMT threads that perhaps should be exposed at its source in each thread that it appears is all.
Discuss the topic, not the people discussing the topic. No personal comments. Look your comments over before hitting Submit and be sure you're debating THE TOPIC.
I just love them. I promise I'll raise it from a cub to become a loving pet that the neighbourhood could appreciate. You see others on the youtube that play with their owners and they look so fun.
So... it's my right. Correct? I can have a cougar?
I would say that is all part of whether one 'uses' their right regardless, even to the detriment of others or if one actually thinks about the impact on the collective of him/her establishing that right. But, sadly, as a society, we are in general too greedy and selfish to consider the collective.
Agreed, First and last one on my account. Sorry...
I guess it could be construed as a right in your pursuit of happiness, or property or just plain liberty. I don't think it's against the law so I guess you could. But as the cougar is endangered, would this 'right' (if one considers this a right) maybe infringe on the collective right as the cougar is endangered? Should I be your neighbour, could it infringe on my right to life should your cougar jump over the fence into my garden and attack me?
No problem...
And to the first part - thank you.
Yupper ... Individual rights rule.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon