Rights (READ OVER THE ORIGINAL POST BEFORE VOTING)

Page 2 of 2 [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Which view of rights do you ascribe to?
Positive rights 35%  35%  [ 8 ]
Negative rights 52%  52%  [ 12 ]
Rights do not exist 13%  13%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 23

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Feb 2007, 10:51 pm

Flagg wrote:
'Rights" is a silly concept.

Sapieus sounds about right to me.

I love to hear people defend their views and brought this topic up to hear views compete and to get people to think. Your view is unorthodox compared to the ones expressed thus far, what would you argue in terms of the workings of society? Would it be roughly in accordance to any form of right, or what other good would be maximized?



Jeckel
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 30

06 Feb 2007, 12:36 pm

I really don't know which option to pick. Rights most certainly do exist, you can look the word up in the dictionary, so not the last option. I can't really make much out of the other two options, as all the example seem to be the same, but the last line of each seems to be the main point. And if that is the case then I guess I should chose Positive.

But I have major problems with the idea that any right is some inalianable, god given kinda of thing. I mean watch five minutes of animal planet and you can see that life, liberty, and the persute of happieness are garonteed in any way. Rights are just words on paper and in the air, and bottom line is that fists always trump words.


_________________
For Evil to succeed, Good Men need only do nothing.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

06 Feb 2007, 3:12 pm

Saepius wrote:
The division between positive and negative rights was created by libertarians and is generally only used in libertarian propaganda. One of the problems with that division is that even so-called negative rights still require some form of third-party involvement if they are to be enforced. For example, it is all well and good to have the right not to be brutally beaten to death (a so-called negative right), but if there is no police force to support it then it is not a right in any practical sense. So, while it may be possible for certain rights to be negative in theory, for such rights to be effective in practice (that is, for such rights to be respected) they require the actions of enforcers and are therefore positive rights.

I think that what motivates libertarians for the most part is the desire to avoid paying tax (and I declare straight away that I have little sympathy for this position). In order to justify this position, they invent a division between those rights that can only be supported by state spending and therefore taxation and those rights which (in theory) do not require state spending. They then use this to mount an argument that the only true rights are negative rights and that taxation is somehow immoral.

I think that this argument is complete and utter rubbish. I believe that all people do, in fact, have the right to equitable access to medical treatment, to education, et cetera. I believe it is wrong for a person to be given or denied medical treatment just because of how much money they have. Furthermore, I believe that each member of society has a responsibility to all of the other members of society. Everyone (including libertarians) reaps the benefits of living in our society and with these benefits come responsibilities. Those who live within our society but refuse to pay tax are not being ethical and high-minded, even if they do not access services that are paid for by taxation - no, they are leeches. The only way that a person can justify not contributing to society is by leaving society. If libertarians really don't want to pay tax then they should go and live in a cave somewhere and withdraw from society completely.


way to try and cut down the idea of libertarianism as just some dodge to avoid taxes.

you wasted 3 paragraphs on saying something ignorant...way to go.

libertarianism is not about the avoidance of taxes but rather the minimizing of government spending and more emphasis on the liberties and rights of the individual and the rights of the state to decide most governing matters. similar to how the states have been trying to manage gay marriage (until the federal government intervenes in a state that's allowed it).

libertarianism is also about a person's responsibilities to one's self. the government shouldn't have to tell every person in the world that they have to wear a seatbelt when they ride in a car...if you don't wear a seatbelt, you know what the consequence is and have earned it if you're too stupid to help youself. no one needs big brother...they ask for it because they're lazy but paranoid. it's rather disturbing that people ask for it...but it happens. libertarians are against the big brother or parenting state that does everything and forces you to do what it sees as right.



Mithrandir
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 614
Location: Victoria, BC Canada

06 Feb 2007, 4:07 pm

If this was based on the real world rather then a theoretical one, then I would say "rights do not exist." However, in Law it is all positive rights (at least in Canada). We currently view positive rights as protection against possible problems in the future.
For example, First Nations people have the right to free education. Some people argue that this should not exist because it is mostly due to the Government seeking forgiveness over its past mistakes. Others say the act is counterproductive because instead of giving a scholarship, they give a lump sum of money (but thats another debate).

The problem with only having negative rights is it also makes things hard for people who have a disadvantage, say mental or physical disability. You cant say to someone in a wheelchair, "Hey I am treating you as fair as anyone else. They don't need a device to help so neither should you, use your hands to move place to place." (I know Awsome will retort this in his next post...)

I think that eventually we will no longer need rights as everyone will be content with how they are. Right now, with so many people focused on achieving "more power," we need something that protects us from hostile actions. Until people can be trusted (might not ever happen), then we will need positive rights enforced by the will of the people.
It is destined to be careful with that "enforcement" idea as well. People wanting more power will attempt to con others into thinking that they are the "saviors" of the world. That is why it must be enforce by the will of the PEOPLE (democracy).


_________________
Music is the language of the world.
Math is the language of the universe.


Saepius
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 106

06 Feb 2007, 9:47 pm

skafather84 wrote:
way to try and cut down the idea of libertarianism as just some dodge to avoid taxes.

you wasted 3 paragraphs on saying something ignorant...way to go.

libertarianism is not about the avoidance of taxes but rather the minimizing of government spending and more emphasis on the liberties and rights of the individual and the rights of the state to decide most governing matters. similar to how the states have been trying to manage gay marriage (until the federal government intervenes in a state that's allowed it).

libertarianism is also about a person's responsibilities to one's self. the government shouldn't have to tell every person in the world that they have to wear a seatbelt when they ride in a car...if you don't wear a seatbelt, you know what the consequence is and have earned it if you're too stupid to help youself. no one needs big brother...they ask for it because they're lazy but paranoid. it's rather disturbing that people ask for it...but it happens. libertarians are against the big brother or parenting state that does everything and forces you to do what it sees as right.


Yes, I am well aware that there is more to libertarianism than the opposition to taxation. I do, however, continute to maintain that it is primarily the taxation element that appeals to its standard bearers. I was not claiming that libertarianism concerns itself only with taxation, but as that is its most distinctive feature (and the most obvious feature that separates it from classical liberalism) and also in many ways the most abhorrent, I was explaining why the opposition to taxation is such a flawed philosophy.

But as regards libertarianism as a whole, I believe it to be a selfish and morally repugnant ideology. Yes, we are all responsible to ourselves but libertarianism denies the fact that we are also responsible to one another. We cannot live in a society of other beings and be responsible only to ourselves.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

07 Feb 2007, 3:23 am

Saepius wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
way to try and cut down the idea of libertarianism as just some dodge to avoid taxes.

you wasted 3 paragraphs on saying something ignorant...way to go.

libertarianism is not about the avoidance of taxes but rather the minimizing of government spending and more emphasis on the liberties and rights of the individual and the rights of the state to decide most governing matters. similar to how the states have been trying to manage gay marriage (until the federal government intervenes in a state that's allowed it).

libertarianism is also about a person's responsibilities to one's self. the government shouldn't have to tell every person in the world that they have to wear a seatbelt when they ride in a car...if you don't wear a seatbelt, you know what the consequence is and have earned it if you're too stupid to help youself. no one needs big brother...they ask for it because they're lazy but paranoid. it's rather disturbing that people ask for it...but it happens. libertarians are against the big brother or parenting state that does everything and forces you to do what it sees as right.


Yes, I am well aware that there is more to libertarianism than the opposition to taxation. I do, however, continute to maintain that it is primarily the taxation element that appeals to its standard bearers. I was not claiming that libertarianism concerns itself only with taxation, but as that is its most distinctive feature (and the most obvious feature that separates it from classical liberalism) and also in many ways the most abhorrent, I was explaining why the opposition to taxation is such a flawed philosophy.

But as regards libertarianism as a whole, I believe it to be a selfish and morally repugnant ideology. Yes, we are all responsible to ourselves but libertarianism denies the fact that we are also responsible to one another. We cannot live in a society of other beings and be responsible only to ourselves.



you're just talking taxes because you got your W2 form back today too. :P


/i BETTER get my tax money back



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

07 Feb 2007, 3:26 am

but in a little bit more serious of a statement....try playing fair mr saepius. you're basically using a stereotypical extremist viewpoint of libertarianism.


if i used that same viewpoint against liberalism, i could easily talk about how canada has failing healthcare or that education in the UK is rapidly getting more and more expensive due to the failed attempts of liberals.


or how about i make an easier point.


if someone says there should be a law about something, there probably shouldn't be. that goes double for liberals and quadruple for social conservatives.



Mithrandir
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 614
Location: Victoria, BC Canada

07 Feb 2007, 4:06 am

skafather84 wrote:
if someone says there should be a law about something, there probably shouldn't be. that goes double for liberals and quadruple for social conservatives.


True freedom like that does not exist yet.
I wouldn't walk into a world like that armed to the teeth (present day).

Unless you replace the word "law" with "Rule" or military order...


_________________
Music is the language of the world.
Math is the language of the universe.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

07 Feb 2007, 5:58 am

Mithrandir wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
if someone says there should be a law about something, there probably shouldn't be. that goes double for liberals and quadruple for social conservatives.


True freedom like that does not exist yet.
I wouldn't walk into a world like that armed to the teeth (present day).

Unless you replace the word "law" with "Rule" or military order...


i meant more along the lines of laws about people being forced to wear seatbelts, helmets, trying to ban abortion. something more along those lines. not that there shouldn't be any presence of law at all...that's just foolish.



Saepius
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 106

07 Feb 2007, 6:07 am

skafather84,

What is a W2 form?

I think that one of the problems here is that the political questions and groupings are very different in different countries. For one, I suspect that we are using 'liberal' to mean different things. Here in Australia, liberals, libertarians and conservatives are all grouped on the right and generally all belong to the Liberal Party (with a handful of Christian right zealots in Family First), whereas the left is represented mostly by Labor, with some in the Greens and the Democrats.

On the question of social issues (abortion, drugs, etc.) most on the left and a few on the right would probably agree with you. I guess that in Australia it is a bit different from the US, as we tend to take many of these freedoms for granted... so in Australia libertarians generally do talk only about tax :).



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

07 Feb 2007, 6:18 am

Saepius wrote:
skafather84,

What is a W2 form?

I think that one of the problems here is that the political questions and groupings are very different in different countries. For one, I suspect that we are using 'liberal' to mean different things. Here in Australia, liberals, libertarians and conservatives are all grouped on the right and generally all belong to the Liberal Party (with a handful of Christian right zealots in Family First), whereas the left is represented mostly by Labor, with some in the Greens and the Democrats.

On the question of social issues (abortion, drugs, etc.) most on the left and a few on the right would probably agree with you. I guess that in Australia it is a bit different from the US, as we tend to take many of these freedoms for granted... so in Australia libertarians generally do talk only about tax :).


yeah....way different.


w2 has to do with income tax. how much money you made, how much tax was taken out....then you either do your tax returns yourself or you take it to a professional to get it done. i'm hoping for a full, or very close to full tax return. mainly because i'm on the poor side and 20% of poor is a little money for the government but a lot of money away from me.


as far as the differences in countires...i have no clue what goes on over in oz. the political structure reminds me a little more of the brittish system....at least with regards to the political parties and interaction.


libertarians here generally tend to be all over the place...some are conservative, some are liberal. the main message is against a large federal government, less government interference in people's personal lives, and more personal accountability.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

07 Feb 2007, 2:27 pm

speaking of superfluous laws....


"A New York state senator has announced his plan to introduce legislation that will ban the use of electronic devices such as iPods, BlackBerrys and cell phones while crossing streets in major cities."


that's the kind of dumb stuff i'm against.