WHAT IS A RIGHT?

Fatal Blindness (FR archives) ^ | 06/14/99 | Fulton Huxtable

[LiberationIT]

Good post, thanks. I would've continued in the discussion, but it seemed to be heading for an argument over whether or not rights are granted by a god. I chose not to spend time on that.

[William Tell]

KrisKrinkle said:
"Civil rights (the right to vote, trial by jury, etc) These exist in a state of society and are dependant upon the society which has been established. "

KrisKrinkle also said:
"Maybe problems regarding statism arise when people deviate from the original terms of the contract. Anybody who doesn't feel obligated by the contract is of course free ignore it and do as they wish but they should also be ready to suffer consequences imposed by those who believe they have a property right in the society and do not wish it to be violated."

I think you are right on here.

I, for example, have withdrawn my consent to be governed due to infringements of my right to keep and bear arms.

So far, none of my actions have been criminal, but I reserve without ethical qualms to right to fight tyranny. As the number of us who also withdraw our consent grows, this will become more important to the future of our nation.

Some people find the "Free State Project" to be rather humorous. I see it as a beginning of the process of withdrawing consent. If our nation wishes to avoid the type of break-up which happened to the Soviet Union, then the nation must return to the Constitution which was established with the consent of the governed.

[LiteKeeper]

I am a retired Army officer (artillery, MI, and chaplain). I have the privilege of teaching several classes in Colorado Springs to high school, college, and adults on comparative worldviews (biblical vs secular). As I read the various threads, some impress me as good for illustrating different worldviews. So, using some Army terminology, I mark "incidents" as "SPOTREPS" (spot report) and "descriptions of the current world scene" as "SITREPs" (situation reports). INTREP (Intelliegence Report) provides information of an event involving those of the "opposition;" INTSUM (Intelligence Summary) provides more general information. When I get home, I download these SPOTREPs and SITREPs to a database for future use.

Does that help?

BTW - "spooky" - "intel" - cute

[tpaine]

CJ ... Is this the same source you once used for your "right to be sad" joke?

[Ahban]

http://cparkansas.org/Is%20it%20a%20Right.htm

There is one that does a good job of delineating what is, and is not, a right.

[tpaine]

Some people find the "Free State Project" to be rather humorous. I see it as a beginning of the process of withdrawing consent. If our nation wishes to avoid the type of break-up which happened to the Soviet Union, then the nation must return to the Constitution which was established with the consent of the governed.
22 -WT-



Well said bump:


But be carefull.. That kind of talk can make people sad. Some here ~insist~ upon their right to happiness.

[NMC EXP]

In many real ways Freedom of Speech is a myth because it has been negated by other laws of the land.

An unalienable right may be denied but doesn't it still exist?

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

When everyone has "Rights" then nobody has "Rights." "Rights" exist only inter pares.

Rights exist only "between peers"?

While in actual practice the ruling aristocracy has more rights than me, is that the way it is supposed to be from Constitutional and moral standpoints?

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

A "right" is whatever an unelected, unaccountable federal judge says it is. The Constitution was supposed to protect certain basic rights but the judges have negated that.

And now the prohibition of the public display of the Ten Commandments is considered to be protecting the "free exercise thereof [religion].

Only in Amerika.

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

Wish someone would 'splain this to all politicians before they run for office

The fiction of "group rights" is one of the major problems with this country.

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

Classic indeed. Thanks for bringing this one back.

Unfortunately Fulton Huxtable's website, "Fatal Blindness" went dark a couple of months ago.

The original article for this post is from the FR archives. This piece was posted several times and it is worth a look to follow some of the old discussions.

You will see some familar names.

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

Bottom line: no God, no rights -- just revokable privileges that happen to be called rights.

I know several libertarians and objectivists who are of the atheist persuasion who would not only disagree with you but would prove their point in debate.

You'll just have to take my word for it. Most are banned.

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

Civil rights and legal rights are not universal. For instance, those who are not citizens may not have the right to vote in national elections.

I believe the author only referred to natural rights.

Perhaps that's a matter of interpretation. If another person or other people infringe on my rights or fail in any obligation they have to me, I might have a right to their life, money, property or time and I may use coercion in regard to that right.

The libertarian "non agression principle" does cover self defense if someone initiates an act of agression against you. I believe Huxtable covers that in another essay.

While it's true that the actual meaning of a right has been corrupted, it is also true that people may have claims on each others lives by virtue of what for lack of a better term could be called a social contract.

I disagree. One person's need can never constitute a claim on the resources of another. We can have purely voluntary social obligations to address the needs of another but that cannot constitute a right.

Maybe problems regarding statism arise when people deviate from the original terms of the contract.

When people fail to fulfill their social obligations to family and neighbors the state is ready and willing to step in by claiming the needs of the poor do constitute a claim on the resources of the rest.

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

Aren't legal barriers due to laws, rather than rights?

In an ideal world all laws would conform to natural rights hence no contradiction.

Is this a contradiction? Why or why not?

No.

Animals do not have rights. Rights apply only to the interactions of men. A solitary man cannot violate the rights of another, or have his rights violated.

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

From the propensities and needs of human nature we recognize the State as resting on a Divine ordinance; only in the State can man support himself and develop according to his nature. But, if the Divine Creator of Nature has willed the existence of the State, He must also will the means necessary for its maintenance and the attainment of its objects. This will can be found only in the right of the State to demand from its members what is necessary for the general good.

And in a later post you troll with the comment to me that "Fatal Blindness is an apt name".

You posting of this Roman Catholic prescription for the symbiosis of the church and the state must mean that you agree with it.

As to the section I highlighted first, states do not have rights -- they have powers. Second, the state "demanding from it's members....for the general good" is the opinion that has resulted in the current welfare state.

Something you have no problem with I am sure. After all, you are merely a republican and not a conservative.

Regards

J.R.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

1. An aristocracy must be recognized, have legitimacy if you please. It does not necessarily have to be registered in a 'Handbuch Des Goetha" to be legitimate. Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe come to mind. They individually and collectively certainly approached and probably were an aristocracy. Landed, trained from youth to command and did command etc.

2. Participation in government must be limited. Voting rights were extended only to those having property above a certain value.

3. Exclusion, 'those who do not belong.' Criminals, vice addicts etc.

There are other elements which would be tiresome to list and read. Members of the above have rights and only towards each other and others of like qualification.

What I have described is close to what really was. Those attitudes are very alien today.

[NMC EXP]

True rights protect us *from* the state.

Thats the way the founders meant it to be. Of course the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Nice to see you again.

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

If I, as an individual natural person, have no inherent authority to compel another individual natural person to pay me in order to travel by car, how is it my agent in govt. can have that authority?

You answered your own question:

...the only party capable of diminishing your natural rights is a thug...

But you knew that.

Regards

J.R.

[GeekDejure]

We really need to add this Constitutional Amendment !!!

ARTICLE XI

You have No Right to change our country's history or heritage !!! This free country was founded upon the belief in One True God !!! Still, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of being persecuted !!! The Ten Commandments and the phrase "In God We Trust" are very important parts of our heritage and history, but if you happen to feel uncomfortable with that... TOUGH SHEET !!!

.

[NMC EXP]

I would've continued in the discussion, but it seemed to be heading for an argument over whether or not rights are granted by a god. I chose not to spend time on that.

That question has been the source of good debates.

Regards

J.R.