reaper239
Reaper's Corner and Poli-Ticks
by , Feb 21st, 2013 at 12:09 PM (65580 Views)
osiris suggested i post this here so i said, "eh, ok."
so, i recently had this major discussion on the other forums with my friend Osiris regarding gun rights, which then devolved into an argument over the basic nature of rights, and it occurred to me: osi didn't actually have a firm understanding of the nature of rights. now, this isn't anything against osi, he's a smart man with a lot of knowledge to impart, but he does seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the basic nature of human rights. to him, rights are semantic, it's all in the language, but the true nature of rights is something much more.
[CENTER][URL="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iZ6AkwQjPaQ/USTOIw-1OGI/AAAAAAAAAN8/qjyKTN-k9Og/s1600/Poli-Ticks+Article+Banner+rights+primer.jpg"][IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iZ6AkwQjPaQ/USTOIw-1OGI/AAAAAAAAAN8/qjyKTN-k9Og/s320/Poli-Ticks+Article+Banner+rights+primer.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]
there are three pillars to western civilization: Judeo-Christian morals, Greco-Roman philosophy, and Anglo-Saxon law. Judeo-Christian morals form the foundations for our freedom. Judaism esteblished the concept of one God, which established the idea of absolute truth. if the is one God to answer to, then there is an ultimate judge, and an arbiter of final justice. God hands down a set of standards for all men to strive for, though none can atain them, and this is the first step in self governance: self accountability. mind that we still keep each other accountable, but it starts with self. i'll discuss this more in depth in my post on perpetuating freedom.
Greco-Roman philosophy established the idea that the world could be understood. this concept was revolutionary in that it removed mystique from the world around us. it fostered curiosity and that things could be known instead of being out of reach. this encourages exploration and innovation and is the source of discovery for the laws of nature. in fact, the very idea of laws of nature arose from Greco-Roman philosophy. i'll be discussing this aspect of western civilization when i discuss American Exceptionalism.
finally, we come to Anglo-Saxon law. Anglo-Saxon law is the basis for human rights, in conjunction with Judeo-Christian morality. Anglo-Saxon law holds that there are certain universal truths about people, for instance no one wants to be killed, and establishes common law, or natural law, to which all are held accountable, and which is above political law (ie government legislation). Judeo-Christian morality portends that this law is handed down from the one true God, and that these laws are absolutely true, and not established by any earthly force.
so, human rights. there are two fundamental rights from which all other rights may be derived or implied: the right to life, and the right to property. the right to life is, of course, your right to live, while your right to property pertains to you're ownership of property. from these we derive the right to liberty, or self determination. for the right to life in it's truest sense, you must have the ability to determine your own quality of life, as any infringement upon that could lead to an early death and so indirectly cause a violation of your right to life. an example of this is north korea where people do not have a right to self determination and are starving to death because their food is being taken, thus constituting a violation of not only the right to life, but the right to property. property directly influences the quality of life and so the right to self determination also protects the right to property.
all rights exist independent of other people. that means that you have your rights regardless of what other people say or do. if those rights are violated, they don't simply go away, they are instead suppressed. this is why slavery had to be abolished. Judeo-Christian morality contends that all men are created by God and are equal at creation, all men are created equal, and therefore, all men have equal rights under common law. slavery is a violation of the right to self determination, and therefore is a violation of human rights.
the right to self determination confers the right to self defense. the right to self defense is the right to defend, with force, ones right to life and right to property. my discussion with osiris was about gun laws, and gun regulation. my position is pro freedom, while his position is for the resriction of people which will, in theory, lead to safety. he claimed a right to protection through legislation and that my right to carry a gun, or determine the use of my property, be secondary to his right to legislate safety. there is no right to legislate safety, because his definition of legislating safety requires imposition on others. it requires action taken against others under threat of force. this is not a right, but tyranny, and tyranny is a violation of rights. osiris argument stands in violation of my right to self determination, and my right to property, and rights cannot violate other rights, this is a basis of common law. i come back to slavery, a person cannot be considered someone elses property because that violates their right to self determination. i can't claim you as property because my right to property cannot infringe upon your right to self determination, and ultimately your right to life.
rights exist in harmony with one another. your rights exist within the confines of other peoples rights. it's like a bubble, your bubble of rights cannot penetrate other peoples bubble of rights. for instance, stealing is a violation of property. this seems obvious, but let's look at why. property is obtained through barter, something of value is traded for something that is seen to have comparable value. how do you obtain something of value in the first place? you trade the only thing you are inherently born with, your time and efforts, you work for it. after performing a set ammount of labour, you will be compensated with something of predetermined value, today we collect a wage payed in a monetary system which says that one dollar is equal to one unit of the combination of skill, time, and effort. the more skill required for a job, the more time required for a job, the more effort required for a job, the more money a person will seek for compensation in return for completion of that job. this money can be taken and traded for anything you want as it represents labour you have done for someone, which can be used to compensate someone else for labour they have perfomed for you. now, let's assume that you have used your labour to trade for something, say a lamp. now, i come along and want your lamp, so i perform labour of my own to gain money with which to trade for your lamp. that's fair trade. now, let's suppose instead that i break into your home and steal your lamp. i have performed labour, but my labour was not equal to the value of the lamp, and what labour i did was not transfered to you to compensate you for the lamp. i have taken your labour without compensation, i have stolen, and this is why we have a right to property. property equals labour and labour equals time, effort, and skill, three things that are inherently yours. if i want something you have, i must trade my labour for your labour.
rights are fundamental, you are born with them, and no one has the right to violate them. you have the right to defend your rights against violation, and for that you have the right to carry force comparable to force you may encounter against you. it's a fundamental issue of rights.0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
Go to Profile
Mark as Read
