Philosophical question about innate rights...

[73109]

So, long story short, I have this friend, and our friendship is based on both of us being pretty weird and digging thinking about weird shit. We talk a lot about politics, philosophy, etc, and today, he and I, along with another girl, got onto the topic of Ayn Rand, suicide, and natural rights. Basically, we were talking about a question on the political compass test involving the restriction of reproducing those with possible inheritable conditions. That moved on to suicide and whether it was morally ethical to kill yourself.

 Both of these questions involve a basic opinion of natural rights. My friend thinks that we are not born with any natural rights so he is in favor of stopping those with inheritable conditions for diseases and is against suicide. On the other hand, I'm the exact opposite. While I can't put my exact thoughts into words, I do believe that in being born and placed on this Earth, we as humans are naturally entitled to do what we want with ourselves as long we do not infringe on others' wanting. Yes, I know, it get's incredibly fuzzy. I'm writing this quickly. So naturally, I am against stopping those from reproducing, as it gets in the way of my version of an innate right to do whatever, and I'm pro-suicide because if we do not have the right to control our own lives, what's the point?

So, I ask you DTF. What are your ideas of our innate, natural rights just living on Earth?

[Orthogonal]

Rights are usually boiled down into two categories. Positive Rights which permit or oblige action (like an entitlement) and Negative rights which permit or oblige inaction. Strictly speaking, "rights" do not exist. They are merely human concepts.

Instead of looking at it as rights, view it as ownership. You own yourself, hence, you own your thoughts and actions. To fully expound on this subject would take books, and there is a lot of debate obviously.

[rumborak]

Yeah, in the end they are strictly human constructs. They do not exist in the animal world, and I also have a hard time saying that saber-tooth tiger was violating the caveman's right when it mauled him.

rumborak

[Liberation]

I'd say the idea of rights may be something artificial, but if nobody ever cared about them, we would have probably already blown ourselves up centuries ago. It's just one of these things which we've developed over time and it's generally a pretty simple rule that better understanding of rights = better functioning society.

However, I generally agree with you:

we as humans are naturally entitled to do what we want with ourselves as long we do not infringe on others' wanting.

Just the only "but" I'd add here is that well, sometimes it is the better option to force someone to do something they may not really like if it's by someone who actually cares and sees it's necessary. Following the example of suicide - I feel in 99% cases (the 1% being very specific situations I don't want to talk about now so I don't derail the thread) it's absolutely the best option to stop them if someone wants to do it, even if they seem very determined. Sometimes people are simply in a very bad state of mind at the moment, and need someone from the outside to bring them into balance. If nobody does, they'll probably regret that decision later (although in this case... well, they can't). However, there are few things that can make me rage more than people condemning someone who commited (or tried to) commit suicide, it's so pathetic I have no words for it.

The other example is a bit different, and I'd say it already goes a bit into the territory of violating others' rights, in this case the child. It's very sad, but you want to consciously have a child that will suffer from the same fate as you?... Sorry, no. It shouldn't happen.

I feel it's simply one of those issues which have a pretty simple general idea, but it needs to be looked at in detail. Freedom for you to kill someone is not freedom for them. If you want your rights, respect the rights of others. If everyone stuck to that, this world would be so much better. And it's not even a complicated concept.

[Orthogonal]

I'd say the idea of rights may be something artificial, but if nobody ever cared about them, we would have probably already blown ourselves up centuries ago. It's just one of these things which we've developed over time and it's generally a pretty simple rule that better understanding of rights = better functioning society.

It's not so much that "if nobody cared about them (rights)", but instead, people are interested in self preservation and act on their instincts to preserve that. Interactions with other people naturally constitute a rivalry for scarce resources which creates conflict. There are numerous ways conflict can be resolved. Peacefully, through trade, charity or diplomacy, or violently by theft or even assault/murder. Centuries ago (millenia more like it), when man was less civilized they generally resorted to the latter, yet it's benefits are short lived and short sighted. Long term stability and growth come through peaceful means. Trade being the most powerful since it set the stage for the division of labor which allowed man to grow out of subsistence living and create advanced civilization.

Slowly, over time, man has transitioned from violent interactions to peaceful. The earliest civilizations, starting with the Egyptians, resorted to brute force slavery and total subjugation to control resources. There was little resolution of conflict or regard for others. Later, humanity transitions to monarchy and serfdom with some priveledges for the under class and marginally better living conditions and finally the transition to constitutional republics/democracies of today where people are better off than they ever have been. As conflict resolution has improved to more and more peaceful means, society has grown. Perhaps some day, in the distant future, we will get to the point where no one resorts to violence to resolve disputes. It seems like a long shot considering the world around us, but I have hope we'll get there.

[Scheavo]

I'd say the idea of rights may be something artificial, but if nobody ever cared about them, we would have probably already blown ourselves up centuries ago. It's just one of these things which we've developed over time and it's generally a pretty simple rule that better understanding of rights = better functioning society.

The earliest civilizations, starting with the Egyptians, resorted to brute force slavery and total subjugation to control resources.

Now, we just use money to achieve much the same end. America is using money and brute force to try and influence Middle Eastern politics, and control resources.

I agree with most of your post, but I really don't see where the truth is in the statement that we are become less violent as a species. Look around the world today and you'll see violence everywhere, we've just changed the name.

As for the discussion, I'd say the only thing that has changed is that we clearly set out what our rights our, people know them, and people expect them. The trick to rights is that people have to know they have them, then they'll be willing to fight for them (if they deem it valuable enough). Today, because of liberal theory, people are very aware of their rights

[Orthogonal]

Now, we just use money to achieve much the same end. America is using money and brute force to try and influence Middle Eastern politics, and control resources.

I don't think you understand what money really is.

I agree with most of your post, but I really don't see where the truth is in the statement that we are become less violent as a species. Look around the world today and you'll see violence everywhere, we've just changed the name.

I tried to qualify it by saying it has been a slow process, and yes, some of it has been obfuscated and abstracted, but that is not because of money, but instead because of government.

It is not generally accepted for me to go over to my neighbors house, demand they give me money at gun point so I can put food on my table or pay for my child's education, but if the government does it, it's "ok". If you refuse this extortion, they kidnap you and throw you in jail. Why can they do it, but not me? Why am I held to a different moral code or ethos than those in government? Under the cover of government, theft has been obfuscated and the name has changed to taxes.

As for the discussion, I'd say the only thing that has changed is that we clearly set out what our rights our, people know them, and people expect them. The trick to rights is that people have to know they have them, then they'll be willing to fight for them (if they deem it valuable enough). Today, because of liberal theory, people are very aware of their rights

Thanks to literacy, the worst enemy of the ruling elite.

[Scheavo]

Now, we just use money to achieve much the same end. America is using money and brute force to try and influence Middle Eastern politics, and control resources.

I don't think you understand what money really is.

Money is a lot of things, but for just about everyone, it's their access to food / shelter. Food and shelter are constant needs, which constantly drain your money. As such, people are not really making a voluntarily decision to work for money, but making a rational decisions based upon the situation. In doing so, most people have to obey their masters, their employers. I should say, I think what we have now IS better than actual slavery, but it's a change of degree, not of kind like you seem to imply.

I agree with most of your post, but I really don't see where the truth is in the statement that we are become less violent as a species. Look around the world today and you'll see violence everywhere, we've just changed the name.

I tried to qualify it by saying it has been a slow process, and yes, some of it has been obfuscated and abstracted, but that is not because of money, but instead because of government.

It is not generally accepted for me to go over to my neighbors house, demand they give me money at gun point so I can put food on my table or pay for my child's education, but if the government does it, it's "ok". If you refuse this extortion, they kidnap you and throw you in jail. Why can they do it, but not me? Why am I held to a different moral code or ethos than those in government? Under the cover of government, theft has been obfuscated and the name has changed to taxes.

No, the paying of taxes is somewhat voluntary. You choose to live in society, that is a choice you make each and every moment. You're free to leave the country, or go live in the middle of no where, but you're going to find a rather striking correlation, that everywhere you'll find civilization and somewhere worth living, you'll find taxes. They may be higher or lower in some places, but they exist everywhere. I'm giving arguments to show that this correlation is not simply causation, that taxes lead to things which make things better for everyone.

As for the discussion, I'd say the only thing that has changed is that we clearly set out what our rights our, people know them, and people expect them. The trick to rights is that people have to know they have them, then they'll be willing to fight for them (if they deem it valuable enough). Today, because of liberal theory, people are very aware of their rights

Thanks to literacy, the worst enemy of the ruling elite.

Literacy which exists because of public education.

[Orthogonal]

No, the paying of taxes is somewhat voluntary. You choose to live in society, that is a choice you make each and every moment. You're free to leave the country, or go live in the middle of no where, but you're going to find a rather striking correlation, that everywhere you'll find civilization and somewhere worth living, you'll find taxes. They may be higher or lower in some places, but they exist everywhere. I'm giving arguments to show that this correlation is not simply causation, that taxes lead to things which make things better for everyone.

This video is especially for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY

[Ħ]

Yeah, in the end they are strictly human constructs.

This exactly.  Human rights are completely arbitrary, barring absolute truth/God/etc.

[Scheavo]

No, the paying of taxes is somewhat voluntary. You choose to live in society, that is a choice you make each and every moment. You're free to leave the country, or go live in the middle of no where, but you're going to find a rather striking correlation, that everywhere you'll find civilization and somewhere worth living, you'll find taxes. They may be higher or lower in some places, but they exist everywhere. I'm giving arguments to show that this correlation is not simply causation, that taxes lead to things which make things better for everyone.

This video is especially for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY

Ya, government does eventually devolve into something corrupt, then it passes on, anarchy follows, and people go back again to government, becuase it's the natural outcome of disputes, and peace. It's an evolving cycle, and as I view it, we're currently in some form of oligarchy (plutocracy - rule by the rich), which makes a democracy the next step.

[Perpetual Change]

No, the paying of taxes is somewhat voluntary. You choose to live in society, that is a choice you make each and every moment. You're free to leave the country, or go live in the middle of no where, but you're going to find a rather striking correlation, that everywhere you'll find civilization and somewhere worth living, you'll find taxes. They may be higher or lower in some places, but they exist everywhere. I'm giving arguments to show that this correlation is not simply causation, that taxes lead to things which make things better for everyone.

This video is especially for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY

Wow. There are a lot of problems with this video, which I'm not sure I have the endurance to go throw.

I will say this, though. It kinda reminded me of something Gaius Balthar would say.

[Liberation]

I'd say the idea of rights may be something artificial, but if nobody ever cared about them, we would have probably already blown ourselves up centuries ago. It's just one of these things which we've developed over time and it's generally a pretty simple rule that better understanding of rights = better functioning society.

It's not so much that "if nobody cared about them (rights)", but instead, people are interested in self preservation and act on their instincts to preserve that. Interactions with other people naturally constitute a rivalry for scarce resources which creates conflict. There are numerous ways conflict can be resolved. Peacefully, through trade, charity or diplomacy, or violently by theft or even assault/murder. Centuries ago (millenia more like it), when man was less civilized they generally resorted to the latter, yet it's benefits are short lived and short sighted. Long term stability and growth come through peaceful means. Trade being the most powerful since it set the stage for the division of labor which allowed man to grow out of subsistence living and create advanced civilization.

Slowly, over time, man has transitioned from violent interactions to peaceful. The earliest civilizations, starting with the Egyptians, resorted to brute force slavery and total subjugation to control resources. There was little resolution of conflict or regard for others. Later, humanity transitions to monarchy and serfdom with some priveledges for the under class and marginally better living conditions and finally the transition to constitutional republics/democracies of today where people are better off than they ever have been. As conflict resolution has improved to more and more peaceful means, society has grown. Perhaps some day, in the distant future, we will get to the point where no one resorts to violence to resolve disputes. It seems like a long shot considering the world around us, but I have hope we'll get there.

Overall, I agree. However, I think that simply "rights" are a concept that really helped this happen; they started from much simpler systems than that (help the king = you get a title), over time growing into the actual understanding on rights and more or less respecting them. It's one of these fundamental concepts that allow society to work at all.

[Orthogonal]

Wow. There are a lot of problems with this video, which I'm not sure I have the endurance to go throw.

I will say this, though. It kinda reminded me of something Gaius Balthar would say.

It's just a different perspective on things and something to think about. Now go be a good little battery.

Overall, I agree. However, I think that simply "rights" are a concept that really helped this happen; they started from much simpler systems than that (help the king = you get a title), over time growing into the actual understanding on rights and more or less respecting them. It's one of these fundamental concepts that allow society to work at all

I wasn't disagreeing, just adding some commentary. But yes, rights as a concept have been incredibly powerful and helped drive much of the Liberty we enjoy today.;

[Orthogonal]

Money is a lot of things, but for just about everyone, it's their access to food / shelter. Food and shelter are constant needs, which constantly drain your money.

You still haven't demonstrated what money is...

As such, people are not really making a voluntarily decision to work for money, but making a rational decisions based upon the situation. In doing so, most people have to obey their masters, their employers. I should say, I think what we have now IS better than actual slavery, but it's a change of degree, not of kind like you seem to imply.


....No, the paying of taxes is somewhat voluntary.

Choosing to work for a living is subjugation, but the ruling class garnishing your wages is voluntary. We are officially in the twilight zone. 

[Scheavo]

Money is a lot of things, but for just about everyone, it's their access to food / shelter. Food and shelter are constant needs, which constantly drain your money.

You still haven't demonstrated what money is...

Ya, actually, I have. I have demonstrated the pragmatic effect of money, without going into the needless economic details of how money works because of human social agreements / desires. Those other things are not unimportant, simply irrelevant for what I'm telling you.

As such, people are not really making a voluntarily decision to work for money, but making a rational decisions based upon the situation. In doing so, most people have to obey their masters, their employers. I should say, I think what we have now IS better than actual slavery, but it's a change of degree, not of kind like you seem to imply.


....No, the paying of taxes is somewhat voluntary.

Choosing to work for a living is subjugation, but the ruling class garnishing your wages is voluntary. We are officially in the twilight zone. 

Hmm, that's a good point. We can only be taxed if we work, though - so we are forced into a condition whereby we have to pay taxes. I'm gonna go ahead and say that if we get rid of the "having to pay taxes" part, we'd still find ourselves in a forced condition. Whereas if we try and do something about that forced condition, the tax issue sorta fades away. I'm sure you'd find this ideal of my rather libertarian - the problem is, even I know it's a little unrealistic.

"The Twilight Zone" is the idea that taxes are the exact same as going to your neighbor with a gun and demanding money. Just because an end is the same, does not always mean that way that end is achieved is the same. It's partly in how we define the "end." Say I want to climb this mountain, and either way, I will end up at the top of the mountain. Each path I take up that mountain is going to be different, is going to affect my body differently, and is going to give me a different experience; in that sense, the end is not going to be the same if I take a different path. In this case, the end is that your neighbor is paying taxes, you are getting some aid from the government, but the means are completely different.

I wish I could live in a world without taxes.. but I also wish I could live in a world without assholes. Since the latter ain't gonna happen any time soon, neither is the former.

[Orthogonal]

Hmm, that's a good point. We can only be taxed if we work, though - so we are forced into a condition whereby we have to pay taxes. I'm gonna go ahead and say that if we get rid of the "having to pay taxes" part, we'd still find ourselves in a forced condition. Whereas if we try and do something about that forced condition, the tax issue sorta fades away. I'm sure you'd find this ideal of my rather libertarian - the problem is, even I know it's a little unrealistic.

I'll consider this a small victory then. 

"The Twilight Zone" is the idea that taxes are the exact same as going to your neighbor with a gun and demanding money. Just because an end is the same, does not always mean that way that end is achieved is the same. It's partly in how we define the "end." Say I want to climb this mountain, and either way, I will end up at the top of the mountain. Each path I take up that mountain is going to be different, is going to affect my body differently, and is going to give me a different experience; in that sense, the end is not going to be the same if I take a different path. In this case, the end is that your neighbor is paying taxes, you are getting some aid from the government, but the means are completely different.

I wish I could live in a world without taxes.. but I also wish I could live in a world without assholes. Since the latter ain't gonna happen any time soon, neither is the former.

"Just because an end is the same, does not always mean that way that end is achieved is the same.": Fair enough, but not in this case.
"In this case, the end is that your neighbor is paying taxes": Whether they want to or not
"you are getting some aid from the government" Whether I want it or not.
"but the means are completely different. ", Not it isn't, you can't opt out, just try. Men in blue costumes will show up at your house with guns.

[Scheavo]

If the argument comes down to me doing things that I don't want to, therefor it cant' be done, I don't know what to say. Life is full of shit I'd rather not do, but I'm forced to do. It's undesirable, but there is no perfect solution. Government is the natural outcome of an anarchic society, because people will invariably start working together, agreeing upon rules, have kids, and grow. The "state of nature" is not something most people want to live in, and it's proven by the fact that you could opt out of paying taxes by going to live in the wild, growing your own food, etc. How are men in blue costumes going to find you when they don't know where you are? There's tons of open land out there, plenty of land to disappear in.

In reality, paying taxes is not violent, even if it has the potential to be so. It should really be compared to the alternative, where with no government, and no taxes. What's to stop assholes from trying to take your wealth? You can arm and protect yourself, but there's going to be someone out there who is a huge asshole, and has a lot of power. What happens when you find yourself under the rule of some asshole, and you have NO say in what you pay taxes for, and what you get from the government? In the overall scheme of things, democratic government is simply the least evil solution to an ugly ass problem.