Anyone being affected by Proposition 8?

[Juniper]

Yes, but where do they come from, these magical "rights"? Who says you've got 'em? Is there proof that they exist?

It's not so much that rights are a manmade invention, it's that man has decided that they must exist and gave them the name "rights."

When you say you have a "right" do this or that, or "no right" to prevent this or that, you're talking about ethics, about what is morally correct or...what's the word..."right." Of course, ethics and morals are subjective and open to interpretation.

What are our "rights," anyway? Is there a list? Who created it? Was it like Moses and the ten commandments?

We do agree that one person's rights end where another's begin, but I think there's a great deal of overlap. For example, if you think a woman has a right to abortion, why doesn't the fetus have a right to survive? (and who says "rights" are given at birth instead of conception? Or even before conception, for that matter?) If you think someone has the right to suicide, why doesn't his family have the right to prevent it? Almost in no case are the only people consensually involved in an act the only people who are affected by that act. If you think you have no right to prevent someone from shooting up heroin, why doesn't that person's child have the right to a drug-free mother?

See, the trouble with "rights" they way you define them is that they tend to overlap or have blurry edges.

Which leads to the question of whose rights are more important.

And since "rights" are not immutable - in fact, are nothing more than a concept invented by man to define his sense of ethics - it comes down to who's got the loudest voice or the biggest weapon.

Don't agree? Prove it.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Juniper

Yes, but where do they come from, these magical "rights"? Who says you've got 'em? Is there proof that they exist?

I've never used the word "magical" to describe rights. Is gravity "magical"? Where does gravity come from? Rights come from the same place as gravity; specifically from nature. They are all part of natural law.

Originally Posted by Juniper

It's not so much that rights are a manmade invention, it's that man has decided that they must exist and gave them the name "rights."

Not really. Men discovered rights that always existed in much the same way Isaac Newton discovered gravity.

Originally Posted by Juniper

When you say you have a "right" do this or that, or "no right" to prevent this or that, you're talking about ethics, about what is morally correct or...what's the word..."right." Of course, ethics and morals are subjective and open to interpretation.

The natural state of man is freedom. The freedom to do ANYTHING you want as long as your actions do not physically harm, endanger, or violate the rights of others. No person has the right to initiate force against another, but all people have the right to use force in their defense.

Originally Posted by Juniper

We do agree that one person's rights end where another's begin, but I think there's a great deal of overlap.

Not really. You deny that rights are even real, so we obviously can't agree on where they begin or end.

Originally Posted by Juniper

For example, if you think a woman has a right to abortion, why doesn't the fetus have a right to survive?

Again, we own ourselves and no other person or other organism has any claim to our body against our will. As long as something resides within our body it has no rights, especially over and above our own. For all intents and purposes, we are the GOD of our own body. We alone get 100% of all decision making power over what will allow to live or die within our body. In fact, since we own ourselves and our life, we can take our own life too.

Originally Posted by Juniper

If you think someone has the right to suicide, why doesn't his family have the right to prevent it?

Because we own ourselves and no other person has any claim to our body or our life, even if they love us.

Originally Posted by Juniper

Almost in no case are the only people consensually involved in an act the only people who are affected by that act.

Emotional harm is irrelevant. Only physical harm does. If we locked up everyone who hurt the feelings of another, everyone on earth would be locked up and we'd have nobody to close the door and turn the key.

Originally Posted by Juniper

If you think you have no right to prevent someone from shooting up heroin, why doesn't that person's child have the right to a drug-free mother?

Because the person doing heroin owns their body and themselves. The child has no claim to the body or the life of their mother. The child does have a right not to be endangered or physically harmed by the parent. If the heroin using mother is also endangering their child, the child can be assigned new parents (as long as they are willingly taking this responsibility) where they won't be endangered.

Your rights don't include changing the person, property, or behavior of others as long as their actions do not PHYSICALLY harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of another. Since the child has no claim to the body of their mother, they do not have a right to a drug-free mother. They only have the right to an endangerment free mother.

Originally Posted by Juniper

See, the trouble with "rights" they way you define them is that they tend to overlap or have blurry edges.

Nope. They are clear and simple, and easy to recognize. There are no blurry edges. There is nothing vague or ambiguous about it. You own yourself, and you have no claim to anyone else. End of story.

Originally Posted by Juniper

Which leads to the question of whose rights are more important.

There is no need to question this since our rights do not overlap. Your right to swing your fist ends where another person's nose begins.

Originally Posted by Juniper

And since "rights" are not immutable - in fact, are nothing more than a concept invented by man to define his sense of ethics - it comes down to who's got the loudest voice or the biggest weapon.

Don't agree? Prove it.

The Descent of Man - Charles Darwin

Natural Law and Natural Rights - James A. Donald

Second Treatise on Civil Government - John Locke

The Rights of Man - Thomas Paine

The Declaration of Independence - Thomas Jefferson

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen) - National Assembly of France

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Magna Carta - Archbishop Stephen Langton

The Law - Frederic Bastiat

Natural Law - Lysander Spooner


Human rights have been self-evident for thousands of years throughout every part of the world. People have always known that freedom was the natural state of humanity. Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle even knew this. Rights are both self-evident and exist. You can't see air, but you can breath it. You can't touch gravity, but you know it exists. You have no proof that love exists, but few would doubt its existence. Humans didn't invent love. Nor did they invent rights.

Rights have existed for as long as the universe has existed and they come from the same place that created the universe and natural law. Human rights existed before humans existed and will exist as long as the universe does. They just are.