Yes, that is why I believe rights are human made. Only one species on the entire planet needs or has the intelligence to justify its actions, and that is us. If we are the only species that need rights to justify ourselves, how can they be anything but human made? The universe is not made for humans so we didn't discover them, we had to make them ourselves.

I am not against the idea of rights either by the way.

Just because humans have the ability to explain their rights, to reason how they apply, doesn't mean animals... uh, the other animals, don't have them too.

Actually it's not rights, it's right, just one.... to do what they wish. No one gives it to them, they're born with it.

We both have the same conclusion, just different ways of wording it.

That right is still a justification and the universe doesn't use justifications. In the human eyes, we are born with natural rights but in the universe's eyes, we don't have any.

Laws don't tell you what to do, only what not to do. If you have no natural right to do what you want, then you must do what I tell you to do. Now rub your belly and pat your head.

In our opinion we have rights because we need some sort of justification for control. I acknowledge the fact that we need rights for society to run but it is solely a human creation so societies can run smoothly. Rights had to come along with laws, it is a package deal. It is the same way with class. If you join a monetary society, class will naturally come with it. If you abolish money you will also abolish class. If you abolish laws you will abolish rights naturally because they are unneeded and Occam’s razor will take them out.

In other words, rights are just serving as a counterweight to laws. Once you get rid of laws (I am against that), then rights will no longer have a purpose.

Our? Who's our?
You are trying to convince me that the cave men, having no laws, had no rights. Nonsense, they all had the right to do what they wanted. They were born with that right, as is everyone before and since.

All laws, all rules, all customs, are an infringement on that right to do what you wish, in an attempt to create cohesive society.

Once again, what is the difference between a caveman with infinite rights and a caveman that just survives? There is no difference so why would the universe make an idea of rights if they are unneeded? So, I am saying that the idea of rights were likely made as a counterweight to laws.

If rights are a justification and humans are the sole species that need to justify their actions, humans are the only ones that could make up the idea of rights. Not the universe but humans.

What would happen if someone was born without rights? Its impossible to imagine because it is impossible to do. You can take away any other universal law (theoritically) but not rights. If it is impossible to take away rights what is the point of reconizing them in the first place? It is just an added piece of information that is not needed, which goes against the will of the universe.


By the way, I will be gone for the next few days so don't expect an immediate answer.

Rights are not sandwiches, nobody makes them, not even the "universe". Every critter is born with them. Were you not paying attention when I said, "Just because humans have the ability to explain their rights, to reason how they apply, doesn't mean animals... uh, the other animals, don't have them too."
We don't need them to justify out actions, although we can, it's not necessary.
Rights aren't a reaction to laws... laws are are a reaction to rights. If people didn't have rights there would be no laws, because people would just have to do what they were told.

Yes! Now you've got it.The point is, you're not the boss of me... and vice versa.C'mon, don't be silly, the "universe" has no will.
Not needed? Without it there would be no truths to hold self evident.

How can you be born with something that can not be made? Rights are ideas, which have to be made by something.

What you are saying is contradictory to what I just said. I said it was impossible to be born without rights and now you are saying it is possible. Do you need a right to do what you are told or not? Either way, if no one tells you what to do then you don't need rights and the idea of rights can still be considered reactionary to power. This is turning into a "what came first, chicken or the egg" argument...

What you are saying is that someone born without rights would be born without free will, more or less. Is this what you are trying to say or not?

Okay, I used the wrong word. Supports may fit better.

I was talking about rights without society or anyone telling you what to do. There is no difference from infinite rights and survival so in that situation rights are not needed. Once a society forms, then the idea of rights are needed.

That's right.

Your definition of "rights" is sort of useless. If all laws are an infringement, we get back to subjective judgement calls as to whether the benefit outweighs the violation. I suspect that piercehawkeye45 considers a "right" to be an aspect of your [universal right to do as you wish] that no benefit outweighs.

This type of right, which is the more common understanding of the word, is invented by humans, and based on culture.

"That no benefit outweighs"?... that depends on who's calling the shots, which is usually the ones making and enforcing the laws. You can bet it will be what's most beneficial to them.

That's why I claim they don't determine my rights with their laws, only infringe on them. I will never accept my rights are "everything else", after they have imposed their will.

"which is the more common understanding of the word", maybe in your world, but not where I come from, buddy.

How you can exercise your rights always depends on who's calling the shots. But what you consider to be a right depends on you, and is largely based on culture. Your definition is nice, but ultimately useless. If both "stop at the red light" and "don't murder" are infringements of your rights, then "rights" are too abstract to be meaningful. You can't make a case against a law as infringing, because that's a given.

On the other hand, if you view a right as "something that no law ought to prevent me from doing", you can actually use the word in a useful way, as in "You should not ban handguns because of the right to keep and bear arms."

My rights aren't based on culture, everyone is born with them.
How in hell do infringements make my rights "too abstract to be meaningful"? That's nonsense, it makes my rights more meaningful, and more important.
I certainly can make a case against a law as infringing... "because that's a given", strengthens my case because I don't have to prove it is an infringement.

It sounds like your saying, save the argument of infringing on my rights, for important fights. Horseshit, every law, every rule, every custom, should be questioned on a regular basis. Anything outmoded, or redundant should be eliminated. There should be no laws without a current legitimate purpose and any that are not clearly so, should be questioned.

Maybe Fewer Hunting Preserves For Crazies
 

In a further development, America's 1st Freedom magazine notes that Texas Governor Rick Perry and some legislators are considering repealing a state law prohibiting possession of firearms on college campuses.

Article Here