You have *no* rights
 

Really think about it. It's lost on most people. You literally can do whatever you want, the only bounds you are put to are what the group decides, and you are part of the group.

There is no such thing as ownership or a right to freedom. You do not have any rights. Nothing belongs to you. You use things based on majority backing. There are no inalienable rights. You do not have a right to freedom. You do not have a right to happiness. You certainly do not have a right to food or water.

No matter how much we wish the universe to be nice and ordered; rights, freedoms, and ownership, its all made up by us.

Technically by fact of being a civilization we are a socialist group. Capitalism assumes individuals can have rights and ownership when really its just a Socialist Society pretending and roleplaying that there are freedoms and rights.

Can a "capitalist" society go on pretending ad infinitum?

What happens when more people start to realize this? Is it in our nature to then stand up even more and live in a better world or turn to the darker aspects of our nature?

Any society, when it organizes itself, presumes certain truths about people and the world. Those presumptions can be as simple as a right of occupancy or self-determination ("The French people have the sole right to determine social and political issues within the boundaries of the country of France.") or as complex as notions of the natural rights of human beings ("...That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among those being...").

Such presumptions, whatever they may be, are the core of any organized society.

Ultimately, human beings make the decision about what rights human beings have. And such decisions inevitably begin with one person. Who are we to say that an individual's claim to a right to freedom is null or valueless? If enough others agree, such a right will actualize, and once actualized, it becomes a precedent to consider for all succeeding societies. Thus, anyone's claim of a right must be taken seriously, scrutinized, weighed-- not just once, but from time to time throughout the life of a society, for one never knows but that the claim may be true.

I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

Your premise is based on a specific and demonstrably false definition of the term 'right,' which seems to be a peculiarity of the American outlook. You adopt the idea that a right is something intrinsic to the individual, only to disprove that very idea. Yet this is quite clearly untrue, which makes disproving it a bit unoriginal at best.

A right is a human philosophical construct. It is by it's very nature artificial. This doesn't make it any less real, but only speaks to the origin of it. It's not an organic thing, but rather one that is defined and enforced by the people.

For example, I cannot say that freedom of expression is an inalienable universal right. This is patently and obviously false, as there are large portions of the Earth's populations who are not granted this right. I may believe that it should be universal and inalienable, but believing that does not make it so. If we accept this, then we must naturally take as a given that a right is not something that exists independently, but rather something that must be granted.

I cannot follow the logic of where you go from there, though. You seem to equate the artificial nature of a right with insubstantiality. There's no logical basis for this -- most of the world around us is artificial in nature. A society by it's very nature is artifice, and exists based on a set of arbitrary rules decided on by (usually) the people within it as being the best set to govern said society. These rules often take common themes, namely that things like theft, murder or unjustified use of force are Wrong, and that things like freedom of travel or expression are Good. The American outlook takes it a step further and, in my opinion goes a step too far; it seems to be an American idea that because these ideas are widely accepted, they must be fundamental and intrinsic. This skips over the idea that they may be artificial but still Good and Right, and leads to things like this thread.

Your final conclusion is where we seem to really depart from reality. Again you equate the artificial nature of capitalism with insubstantiality, and dismiss it as playacting. I'm unable to comprehend how this is possible, except to assume that you truly believe this fallacy you've constructed. Capitalism is no more or less real than socialism, if we take these two terms within the context of their widely accepted polar definitions, and neither one is particularly true or natural. We can apply the physical concept of entropy to this idea, and come up with something approximating what I believe to be an accurate depiction. The 'natural state of society,' in so far as such a thing exists, is the one with the maximum amount of disorder -- if we were going to put a name to it, I suppose that name would be anarchy, although the term has connotations that I'm not really looking to explore here. The interesting thing about this is that the natural state of society is contrary to the natural state of humans -- humans are social creatures, and social groupings require organization and hierarchy to thrive. These things take effort. Energy must be expended in order to counteract entropy. Thus, the conclusion we may draw is that the natural state of society, when combined with the natural state of humanity, leads to instability and change. Artificial constructs must arise as a result of this combination, and since 'society' is a human construct to begin with and cannot exist independently of humanity, the only thing we can say about it is that instability is at the core of it and anything else (not just capitalism) is simply convention.

That's heavy, doc.(Is that a bugs bunny reference for Martian or a Marty Mcfly ref?)

If we don't have rights, then the whole definition of rights is moot.

By the simple nature of being alive, you have rights. yes, you actually have rights that are inalienable and irrevocable. To view people in other areas of the world and equate their inability to have 'freedom of speech' as proof that rights are not real and that they are only 'granted' by the society or government that rules them is a collectivist viewpoint. These rights exist, whether a person can exercise them or not, and in the absence of the ability to exercise these rights only means that these rights are being denied them by that society or government.

Go out into the wilderness and you will find out what your rights are in nature.

I pretty much agree with what you said Mart...

I wasn't implying it was original, this is a message board, not a peer reviewed journal :P

And I think its quite obvious that to most (doesn't mean you Mart) people our rights are "god given" and "real" in the sense that they will always be morally right. My only point is that we totally made em up (whether god exists or not) and I'm wondering what this means for the future once more people realize this.

"I cannot follow the logic of where you go from there"
So what part of it can't you follow Mart?


"Go out into the wilderness and you will find out what your rights are in nature."
Pretty much my point in a nutshell.

I have already enumerated the logic that I cannot follow. Allow me to try again.

My understanding of your premise goes like this:

A) 'Rights' are a social construct.
B) Because they are a social construct, they are not real.
C) Because they are not real, anything built upon them (ie capitalism, although democracy could just as easily fall into there) must also be false.

Your movement from B to C is logical, but B does not follow A. The artificial nature of a right does not make it illusory. Capitalism is real and substantial and powerful for as long as people continue to believe in it and make it so. Socialism is the same.

Calling a right 'god given' turns this into a theological discussion. Not where I think you wanted to go, although I could be mistaken. Calling a right 'moral' is a judgment of it's value within the context of a moral structure. If we accept the idea of absolute morality, we may be able to make headway there, but again I'm not sure if that's the direction you intended to go in.

Being 'made up' has nothing to do with the importance of something. Art, law, religion. All of these things are 'made up' to a greater or lesser degree depending on one's views and beliefs, and all of them are powerful and important.

cybermike: I don't know if that was directed at my post, but will address it as if it was.

Nowhere did I say that rights are not real. What I said (in quite a few words, granted) is that they are not natural. In this context I use the word 'natural' only to imply that these rights do not exist independently in nature and nothing more or less. It speaks not at all to the substantiality of them, nor their significance or propriety.

To me, this is self evident. A right is something that exists within a social construct. It does not exist unless or until somebody dreams it up. The much-touted right to freedom of expression is an excellent example; I consider it very important and it's something I hold dear, yet I know that it is an artificial thing. It is powerful and important and good and real. It is all of these things, but it is not natural and it is not universal.

dksuddeth: Calling something irrevocable is impossible as long as situations exist where that thing is being revoked. People around the world are being alienated from their right to free speech, which in and of itself suggests that said right is not inalienable. QED.

The problem we have is with the word "real." We understand what real means and what can be important, etc. My premise if you want to call it that is that the majority of people do not realize what "real" is...so to speak. We understand that it is the value we place on something that can make it real or fall to the wayside, but most people see "reality" as more concrete and I am pondering what will happen once they realize the truth.

It is self-evident to us, but IMO not to the majority. I was attempting to refute the imagined majority in my head without actually writing that part down (as I often do), so I can see how that might be confusing.

Does it make sense now Mart?

Funnily enough this reminds me of that "Ghost" thread and the point I was trying to prove there. Where'd that thread go..

Maybe it's the title that's throwing me.

Regardless:

re⋅al
1  /ˈriəl, ril/
–adjective
1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
2. existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3. being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.

There's not a lot of room for ambiguity there.

It occurs to me that we may actually be having a different discussion from the one I thought we were having. If we want to talk about the insubstantiality of ideas, there may be something there in the direction that you seem to want to go in. A right is not something that I can hold in my hand. I cannot barter it for goods or services. I cannot steal it from you, and I cannot show it to you. It is not concrete, and it's existence does depend on the people who hold to it. Is that what you're trying to convey?

Pretty much. And what happens when more people realize such? I can see it getting worse, or getting better.

They're rights defined by society. You're a member of that society. it's not so much a part of physical evolution as it is collective socialism's evolution.

although, it's perfectly viable for someone to pull an "into the wild" and abandon their place in society if they choose to disown the norms

yup, like speeding...

you're good until you get caught...

Nothing's illegal until you get caught. Even then it's not a real problem until a court decides you did it.

You only have one inalienable right: The right to try to survive. Beyond that, all of our "rights" are nothing more than social, political, and philosophical whims.

WTF am I seeing here? OK, go kill people then. Do it sneakily and don't get caught. In fact, be real vigilante and kill only bad people.

Things are illegal because they are wrong.

Rights are real. We are not animals and we HAVE to live together. Because of this we need stability and reason. We are incapable of the pack mentality given to animals instinctively. We have to create this mentality ourselves, hence laws.

Laws that prevent us from freely decrying our distaste in badly written and/or formed laws impune on our standard of living. This lowers our lifespan, defeating the "living" purpose.

Rights are not a social construct, they are a reasonable manifestation of what animals have by instinct.

Animal instinct=human rights.

Just thought I'd point out in a friendly and kind way that these two statements are contradictory.

And again, because it seems to get missed over and over:

Artificial != illusory. Being man-made does not make something less real.

Dude,

social construct - I had to literally compute this in my head and read it made by society ...

I was wrong ... Thanks.

But then as I think about it, I have to say I'm a bit tounge tied, when I can type something better, I'l get back with you guys on how I think human rights were not exactly man-made ... more naturally prevalent.

It's all a game. Games have rules, or else you're not playing a game. You can play by a commonly accepted (consciously or unconsciously) set of someone else's rules and play with the vast majority, play by something closer to your own rules and play with a smaller group or play entirely by your own rules with your own narcissism.

Go team maverick!

Could someone find a good formal/philosophical definition of rights? Id do it but im high on meds and having an episode atm.

Both the objectivist line, and the subjective line are completly consistent, equal, opossite, necessary, simultaneous, and contradictory.

I favor romantic philosophy over analytic.

There might be a God's-eye, nirvana perspective beyond?

Whether or not you have "rights" is determined completely by your worldview.

"Go out into the wilderness and you will find out what your rights are in nature."

Second!

---------- Post added at 10:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------

Hey, good point flow Vana.

But could'ja spread out your language? Water down the substrate? 'Cause I think most people like to drink their Kool-Aid with a big more water than that, know what I mean?


There is a nice little strand here that Vana has alluded to, though.

What about higher beings? What do they think of rights? Is that knowledge a birthright?
an instinct?

We know that humans are stuck in the chaotic system, the natural chaos, which means that the biggest, strongest influence(s) makes the rules for the rest. With human nature it's pretty unfair, but in proper nature there seems to be a good set of instinctive rules that all life forms abide by, what are they?

I think we've come to the conclusion that humanity really hasn't defined, fully and properly, what rights actually boil down to. Currently its really just poetic language for laws or morality.

What rights really should be as most of us have grown up believing is, like the US constitution says, inalienable . Which means something one cannot take away. But really, there are no rights as we know them that one cannot take away. Even the "right" to survive as someone mentioned can be taken away. "I" can kill you with a missile from miles away and you'd never know it was coming.

Zeraph. It's a good thought, but I agree with post #3 - where are you going with this? It seems like you need to draw some sort of conclusion.

A right is a convention, like you say, but that doesn't make it less true. Our world, our lives, are a game played by consensus rules. You play Monopoly - Couldn't you just punch everyone and take the money? You could, but you agree to different rules. So you play, behaving in the way which was agreed upon. Real life is no different; saying that rights only exist because we allow them to does not change the fact.

This is not a false appeal to authority, if you're trying to draw us a logical fallacy, but a legitimate one.

Your argument seems only to extend so far as to suggest that the rights are arbitrary, which links into the subjects of Justice, and Piety. If this interests you I might recommend you read Plato's Socratic dialogs: Euthyphro, Protagoras, and Republic I-III (i think it's I-III)


Also, I should like to point out that you seem to be confused about the concept of inalienable. Obviously, we can do lots of "bad" things to people. Inalienable means that this is the set of rights which the founders specified the constitution/government/police shall not ever violate.

There's no such thing as money

Really think about it. It's lost on most people. You literally can do whatever you want, the only bounds you are put to are what the group decides, and you are part of the group.

No matter how much we wish the universe to be nice and ordered; money, supply, and demand, prices, its all made up by us.

Technically by fact of being a civilization we are a socialist group. Capitalism assumes individuals can have money when really its just a Socialist Society pretending and roleplaying that there is money.

Can a "capitalist" society go on pretending ad infinitum?

What happens when more people start to realize this? Is it in our nature to then stand up even more and live in a better world or turn to the darker aspects of our nature?

Rights are as real as money. You can buy things with money, just as you can enjoy rights, but they are simply not absolute. Their value can change and even collapse under the wrong circumstances.

I really don't know where this idea that something which doesn't exist outside of a social construct must not exist at all comes from.

It's baffling.

And demonstrably false.

I have to disagree here. There's a big difference between morality and legality. Things are illegal for a variety of reasons, some of which are moral, MOST of which are financial or simply expression of power of one group over another. It is not wrong to use marijuana or brew your own hard liquor with a permit, and it is not wrong to eat food with trans fats in NY or to allow gay men to adopt children in Georgia. They are only illegal because somebody doesn't like those things or wants to get money from you.

Every time the title of this thread pops up to the top, I start hearing Phil Collins and Marilyn Martin sing Separate Lives.

"...you have no right ...." (40 seconds in)

Money will always buy you stuff, but rights only protect you as long as people either agree on them or (the important part) someone can get away with taking advantage of your rights. Although I could definitely make arguements that money isn't real either...the US dollar isn't even backed by the gold standard anymore but that's getting off topic.

I see your point but you take it a bit literally. 'Real' should be something consistent i.e. part of reality. Rights aren't consistent. Not even day to day are they consistent.

Look at the Ruble in the 1990s and tell me that. In 1988 $1US = 4p. In 1998 $1US = 8000p. Holy crap, right?

But anyway, what I was meaning to say is that rights, like money, are only as real as the people think it is, and they're both surprisingly fragile and are subject to change. Look at what happened to the US$ and Habeas corpus in the last 8 years.
Actually, that does sort of speak to what I was saying. Money is only real as long as the market and the consumers think it's real. It's not backed by anything substantial. Similarly, rights are only real as long as the government and the people think they're real. They're not backed up by god or some objective natural laws.

Of course you can do whatever you want. And there are consequences, as justified by society. This is why a man's worst enemy is mankind.

Yup, we agree Will. My point is most people don't seem to think this way.

There really isn't much protecting anyone's rights. You only need to have slightly above average intelligence to get away with murder 90% of the time. The vast majority of crimes go unpunished and even worse some people get punished for crimes they didn't commit.

Indeed. We're now into ontology.

Real is not a synonym for "tangible". That a thing exists only in our agreement that it exists in no way makes it not-real.

The preacher (or someone else with the socially/legally granted authority) says "I now pronounce you man and wife", and your marriage is real. It wasn't the moment before that got said, and the minute that got said, it is. You can say "well, those are just words, there's nothing 'real' about marriage". But you ever try to get out of one?

Civilizations are made of lies. They tell each other lies (that the King rules, that Honor and Loyalty matter, that the food in the grainery will be used to feed you over the winter, that the rains will come next year, etc), and from those lies build a fortress of power.

Note that the lies can come true: that isn't what makes them lies. What makes them lies is that their coming true is not something that is at all guaranteed: for them to come true, others must follow the same complex of lies.

Barbarians are always at the gate. Barbarians, in this little story, is anything that doesn't "buy into" the lies of your civilization. It could be a typhoon, a drought, a tribe of horse riding archers, a scholar who tacks a letter on a church door, a mere duke who overthrows the king, or a comet smashing into the world. These Barbarians don't care what lies you tell each other in your civilization; or, at the least, they do not care about a certain subset of your lies.

Now, both the lies of civilization, and the barbarians, are useful. Without barbarians, you could build a civilization that destroys and grinds under every member of it: that fears change more than progress, and actively harms its own members. Without civilization -- well, without civilization, human life would be really nasty, brutish and short. Even a language less two person tribe relies on lies that each tell each other.

The fact that "rights" are lies of a civilization doesn't make them unimportant. If you see those "rights" and that civilization as worth defending, what you have to do is realize that there are barbarians, and they don't respect those rights.

(And yes, the laws of physics are barbarians!)