Cuts to UK Science Research and Student Grants:

[Hermit]

If a "right" is a freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others, then the conflict of rights is what occurs when two organisms vie for the same resource, and the adjudication of which organism will win the use of the resource is the natural basis for all social systems that follow, from the very simple Law of the Jungle to the most complex of human or animal societies. Social organization requires rules of behavior and conduct to exist, and such rules may be simple or exceedingly complex, and they may be instinctive and genetically programmed or philosophical constructs, but they all derive from the same fundamental organic need for organization in order to advance and enhance the survival of the species. This is as true of human beings as it is of ants or wolves.

Most of that is pretty uncontroversial stuff, and except for one aspect of what you say I agree with you. The fly in the ointment is the implication that there is a right of freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others in nature. There is not. Nature, be it flora or fauna, will infringe on that alleged right left, right and centre. One species of plants will displace another one a regular and routine basis, and just as often one plant will displace another plant of the same species. In many animal organisations alpha males arrogate the right to fertilise females in oestrus to the exclusion of other males. Their role as alpha males is repeatedly contested by pretenders. While the challenges are often ritualised, they usually involve brute force. Females in oestrus have next to no say about having sex, and what little they do have either involves forceful resistance or flight. There is no right as such - just practice as developed by evolution - and even if one allows for the sake of the argument that there is such a thing as a right in nature it can hardly be described as "a freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others".

You start off with the premise "a right is a freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others", follow it with premise "therefore it is a right that is based on nature and biological" and conclude that therefore the right to freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others is based on nature and biological. The circularity is palpable and the first premise is manifestly wrong.

Seeing that your above argument is central to your ideology I am under no illusion that you will concede that there it contains two fatal errors. Instead, I expect another wall of words from you with which you attempt to explain how you are completely right and everyone who disagrees with you on that matter is just wrong, and I am confident that you will have done an excellent, logically faultless job of it because, as always, it originates from your superior intellect.

[JimC]

Individual rights are extremely important, and I am glad to live in a society which, in general, asserts and defends those rights. Yet they are not either natural or absolute, but are derived from a social contract, enshrined to a degree by common law, but ultimately protected by an educated public wanting to live in a social environment that is fair and just.

[pErvinalia]

"Rights" imply authority. Without an authority to confer (and support) those rights, there is no such thing as rights. 'Natural Rights' is just a religious concept trying to pretend it isn't religious. Man was created apart from animals in the Abrahamic religions at least. It's an attempt to philosophically justify a nonsensical view that somehow Man is a thing apart from the animal world.

[Seth]

Neither government appeared spontaneously and fully-formed out of the quantum foam, they evolved over time from less complex forms extending clear back to before Hammurabi to basic tribalism and beyond.

The question at bar here is which comes first, the chicken or the egg, or in this case the individual or the government. I think it is perfectly obvious that the individual came first because governance doesn't even begin to appear until there are two individuals present who require some sort of adjudication of rights with respect to the competition for the basic necessities of life.

To maintain that government exists before individuals exist makes no sense at all and grants "government" some sort of independent physical existence in the universe that is not dependent upon the prior existence of organic life forms.

That sounds nonsensical to me. Can you explain your reasoning?

Off you go, demolishing the straw man that you made. I never said that. Nor anything that meant that. I said that there were governments before man evolved. Not before ''individuals existed''.

Our ape ancestors had a form of government, in the social structures that they lived under. They ''owned'' and defended a territory, that belonged to the society. And you were expected to play your part in defending it. And to defer to individuals who out-ranked you in the social standings.
And to grovel and groom higher ranking members, or give up any item of food that they demanded.
Just like modern apes do. Plus all the sex privileges that high ranking apes enjoy.
It's a series of unwritten laws that they all know and understand, and obey for the most part.
Although there is plenty of cheating going on.

Yes, I understand that, but you are referring to an evolved system. I'm referring to first principles. At some point some primate took a step that one might possibly view as being a first step in "government." What was the state of nature prior to that event?

As I said, one individual alone has no need of government because there is no possible conflict over liberties or resources that can occur. Such conflicts can only occur when there are two or more individuals present competing for the same resources, which requires some sort of method of adjudicating who gets what.

The point here is that the individual comes first, and its rights derive from its basic physiological needs for survival. It has the right to survive because it claims the right to survive and defends that right against intrusion by others, even ONE other. The right pre-exists the method of adjudication and is in fact the very genesis of the need for adjudication in the first place. The right to survive implies the right to seek out and obtain the resources necessary for survival, which infers the right to defend exclusive possession and use of those resources. Only when some other organism challenges that exclusive possession of a necessary resource does a method of adjudicating allocation of that resource come into being, which is what you want to call "government." In the primitive sense, the adjudicatory method is simple force and fitness to survive, ie: the ability to successfully defend those rights. But the individual has to exist first, and must have a right to be adjudicated before a system of adjudication comes into play.

As far as rights go, I totally refute your idea of rights. It's just your imagination.
A right is only something real, if others recognise it, and agree to abide by it.

Or unless you can defend your assertion of that right against an intrusion by another.

Your ''right to life'' means nothing, if you are sentenced to death. You might think you have a right to life, others don't. And you lose. You thought you had a right to life, but others disagreed.

This is a bridge too far. We aren't at present talking about the details of how rights are adjudicated or apportioned, we're discussing the origin of rights in the first place, and the individual must come first, for without two or more individuals in conflict there is no need for "government."

You think you have a right to your property, but if others take you to court for a debt, your property can be taken off you.

Ibid.

It's only a right so long as those who have the power let it be so. And that applies to all rights.
There are no ''natural'' rights.

And who is the most fundamental and original individual who has the power to defend a claimed right? The individual who is asserting the right.

Everything else comes later, including government, which means that government cannot create fundamental rights because government doesn't exist until after the fundamental natural (I call them the "Organic Rights") rights attach simply by virtue of the existence and biological functions of living creatures.

[Seth]

If a "right" is a freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others, then the conflict of rights is what occurs when two organisms vie for the same resource, and the adjudication of which organism will win the use of the resource is the natural basis for all social systems that follow, from the very simple Law of the Jungle to the most complex of human or animal societies. Social organization requires rules of behavior and conduct to exist, and such rules may be simple or exceedingly complex, and they may be instinctive and genetically programmed or philosophical constructs, but they all derive from the same fundamental organic need for organization in order to advance and enhance the survival of the species. This is as true of human beings as it is of ants or wolves.

Most of that is pretty uncontroversial stuff, and except for one aspect of what you say I agree with you. The fly in the ointment is the implication that there is a right of freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others in nature. There is not. Nature, be it flora or fauna, will infringe on that alleged right left, right and centre. One species of plants will displace another one a regular and routine basis, and just as often one plant will displace another plant of the same species. In many animal organisations alpha males arrogate the right to fertilise females in oestrus to the exclusion of other males. Their role as alpha males is repeatedly contested by pretenders. While the challenges are often ritualised, they usually involve brute force. Females in oestrus have next to no say about having sex, and what little they do have either involves forceful resistance or flight. There is no right as such - just practice as developed by evolution - and even if one allows for the sake of the argument that there is such a thing as a right in nature it can hardly be described as "a freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others".

Re-read the definition. It says that a right is a freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others. This says absolutely nothing whatever about the success or lack thereof of that defense. Clearly no right is absolute, but that's not what we're discussing, we're discussing the origin of rights.

My primary argument is that government is always second place to the individual and since government cannot justly exercise any authority that the individuals who make up the society do not already have and agree to delegate to the government, rights must have their fundamental genesis in the nature of the individual because to say that rights originate in government is to miss a basic and essential step in the derivation of the meaning of the word "rights."

The dictionary definitions all relate to the evolved situation of today, which is why you claim that rights emanate from government, but I'm attempting a deeper philosophical investigation of the idea of rights and where they originate. I believe that the idea of "natural rights" is fundamentally correct but definitely arguable in terms of how our Founders and others came to that conclusion. I'm philosophizing towards a naturalistic definition of rights that does not resort to theism for its strength, and I believe I've found it.

You start off with the premise "a right is a freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others", follow it with premise "therefore it is a right that is based on nature and biological" and conclude that therefore the right to freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others is based on nature and biological. The circularity is palpable and the first premise is manifestly wrong.

Not at all. I base the first premise upon careful observation and analysis of the natural, evolved behavior of all living organisms, which i don't really hesitate to call "nature and biology." From that observation I conclude that every living creature acts in the same basic way, no matter how simple or complex the organism. All living organisms have evolved to have as the first biological imperative survival of the individual organism. Whether this is simply genes replicating themselves or not, as Dawkins suggests, it is a fact that every living organism strives to survive. The most basic function of survival of the individual organism is the search for and acquisition of the physical resources that keep the organism alive. The second most basic function of the organism is the evolution of defensive mechanisms, from the bacterial lancet to the machine gun, to defend the exclusive possession and use of those essential resources. The third biological imperative is that of reproduction to preserve the viability of the species.

Regardless of what the organism is, every organism has the same fundamental biological imperatives, and it is from these biological imperatives that I deduce the definition of "right" as being "a right is a freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others." Every organism takes actions for self-preservation and reproduction even if they do nothing else. This means they must seek out and take exclusive possession of the necessities of life (light, nutrients, etc.) and they must defend that exclusive possession against intrusions by others in order to preserve life and provide opportunity for reproduction.

This definition of "right" meshes well even with the advanced notions of rights in modern human society. The concept of rights as presently stated assumes that one individual exercises a freedom of action that brings him into conflict with another which must be adjudicated in some fashion to determine which exercise of freedom prevails over the other. The word "rights" as presently used is a shorthand reference to the evolved hierarchy by which conflicts over resources or freedoms of action are resolved, but I'm searching for a much more fundamental understanding of where the concept originates from, and I see it originating in nature and natural biological behavior which is determined by evolution.

Seeing that your above argument is central to your ideology I am under no illusion that you will concede that there it contains two fatal errors. Instead, I expect another wall of words from you with which you attempt to explain how you are completely right and everyone who disagrees with you on that matter is just wrong, and I am confident that you will have done an excellent, logically faultless job of it because, as always, it originates from your superior intellect.

[/quote]

Or, we could have a respectful philosophical discussion of my thesis and avoid the sniping. I'm perfectly willing to defend my thesis in a reasonable manner, and I think I've been doing so.

[Hermit]

Enough of your stuff already. It's been years since I have read a post of yours that I have not already read before. I have become sick of listening to the cracked record titled Seth. So now my ignore list has doubled in size. No, it's not self-censorship. It would be if it prevented me from hearing something I have not heard before.

From now on all I'll see of your crap is what other members quote. I will feel free to comment on that if the mood takes me there. Bye now.

[Seth]

Enough of your stuff already. It's been years since I have read a post of yours that I have not already read before. I have become sick of listening to the cracked record titled Seth. So now my ignore list has doubled in size. No, it's not self-censorship. It would be if it prevented me from hearing something I have not heard before.

From now on all I'll see of your crap is what other members quote. I will feel free to comment on that if the mood takes me there. Bye now.

Don't blame me for your inability to resist the siren-song of Seth. And thanks for fucking off, your ignorance and stupidity is quite boring.

[pErvinalia]

He's right, Seth. You're a broken record. It's the same shit on repeat. You haven't had an original thought in a decade.

[mistermack]

Yes, I understand that, but you are referring to an evolved system. I'm referring to first principles. At some point some primate took a step that one might possibly view as being a first step in "government." What was the state of nature prior to that event?

Well, the answer to all that is blindingly obvious. You are skipping round it all the time.
It's when animals first live in a troop, or clan, or any kind of organised group, that some form of embryonic government can arise. Before that, non-social animals lived relatively solitary lives. But that's going a very very long way back, in the case of humans.
All the evidence points to our ancestors living in social groups for many millions of years.

When it comes to rights, an individual has a right to do anything it feels like, in a non-social environment. It can kill another of the same species, eat it, fuck it, do whatever it likes.
And they have the same rights, to do the same to you. Whether they would want to is another matter.

Your right to ''property'' as a solitary animal is meaningless. You have a right to defend it. Others have a right to take it. One minus one equals nil. And the same applies in the opposite direction.

In your scenario, they had a right to property. Maybe, but it's a meaningless right when nobody had to respect it.
So if you want to extend that principle to modern day life, yes, you have a right to property, and no, others don't have respect it.

You can't have it both ways. If you think primeval rights should apply today, then primeval levels of respect for those rights should apply too.

[Seth]

He's right, Seth. You're a broken record. It's the same shit on repeat. You haven't had an original thought in a decade.

And you have? Hardly. I wouldn't have to keep repeating the truth if you were intelligent enough to comprehend it. But you're not.

[Seth]

Yes, I understand that, but you are referring to an evolved system. I'm referring to first principles. At some point some primate took a step that one might possibly view as being a first step in "government." What was the state of nature prior to that event?

Well, the answer to all that is blindingly obvious. You are skipping round it all the time.
It's when animals first live in a troop, or clan, or any kind of organised group, that some form of embryonic government can arise. Before that, non-social animals lived relatively solitary lives. But that's going a very very long way back, in the case of humans.
All the evidence points to our ancestors living in social groups for many millions of years.

I agree. Completely. You've just confirmed my thesis. Thanks for that. You've proven that the individual precedes the collective when it comes to behavioral regulation (government). Are we done now?

When it comes to rights, an individual has a right to do anything it feels like, in a non-social environment. It can kill another of the same species, eat it, fuck it, do whatever it likes.

Which is exactly what I said in the very beginning. Thanks again for restating the premise.

And they have the same rights, to do the same to you. Whether they would want to is another matter.

Indeed, and precisely the point. Where there is no conflict there is no need for government. Only when conflict between two individuals occurs does some sort of adjudicatory mechanism become necessary. Thus, once again, the individual precedes the mechanism.

Your right to ''property'' as a solitary animal is meaningless. You have a right to defend it. Others have a right to take it.

Exactly correct. The right is based in the natural behavior and needs of all living organisms. When two organisms come into conflict over a fundamental right, some mechanism of resolving the dispute naturally occurs. In the most primitive sense the adjudicatory mechanism is pure force. Whichever organism is stronger or better adapted to defending the resource, or acquiring sole and exclusive possession and use of the resource, has vindicated the right to do so.

Everything, and mean everything after that is merely a more complex iteration of the basic principle of resolving conflicts between individuals, right up to the idiocy we see in Washington and everywhere else on earth in formalized "governments."

But the important point here is that it all starts with the individual claiming and defending the fundamental Organic Rights which are based on the fundamental, and entirely natural, Organic Laws.

One minus one equals nil. And the same applies in the opposite direction.

In your scenario, they had a right to property. Maybe, but it's a meaningless right when nobody had to respect it.
So if you want to extend that principle to modern day life, yes, you have a right to property, and no, others don't have respect it.

Absolutely correct! Well done! Well, almost... It's not a "meaningless" right, it's a natural and fundamental one that depends for its vindication on the ability of the individual to assert and defend it. Having the right does not axiomatically mean that one will be successful at vindicating it, merely that it exists as a freedom of action which may be defended against intrusion by another. The mechanism of vindicating a right varies widely, and at its most basic primitive level consists of force and ability and nothing more. The point, however, is that the right is natural, inherent and unalienable and it precedes and pre-exists any form of government, even the most primitive form of survival of the fittest.

You can't have it both ways. If you think primeval rights should apply today, then primeval levels of respect for those rights should apply too.

Don't be nonsensical. I'm not suggesting that primitive rights should apply today, I'm merely exploring the philosophy, logic and reason of the natural organic basis of rights as a refutation of the thesis that rights only come into being when granted by some government agency.

You have just admitted that I am correct, for which I thank you.

[mistermack]

You have just admitted that I am correct, for which I thank you.

Except that what you describe, are not rights. They are just the abilities you acquire by existing.
I used the word ''rights'' in my post deliberately in the manner that you have been using it. I wouldn't call any of that stuff ''rights'' myself.

Any organism can act in it's own self interest, until some outside agency gets in the way. It's nothing to do with rights.

You need to look up the word ''rights''. As I said earlier, the English language seems to be giving you problems.

Exactly correct. The right is based in the natural behavior and needs of all living organisms.

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1]

[JimC]

Seth is happy about rights, but he doesn't like lefts...

[Seth]

You have just admitted that I am correct, for which I thank you.

Except that what you describe, are not rights. They are just the abilities you acquire by existing.
I used the word ''rights'' in my post deliberately in the manner that you have been using it. I wouldn't call any of that stuff ''rights'' myself.

Any organism can act in it's own self interest, until some outside agency gets in the way. It's nothing to do with rights.

You need to look up the word ''rights''. As I said earlier, the English language seems to be giving you problems.

No, I just find a deeper meaning to the word "rights" than the superficial political one. In doing so I'm in good company, with the likes of Bentham, Aquinas, Hume, Rousseau and other philosophers who found themselves unsatisfied with narrow-minded and astigmatic adherence to doctrinal definitions. According to Wikipedia, the definition of rights is more than a little vague and flexible:

There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of this principle, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial.

This is just such a disagreement.

Exactly correct. The right is based in the natural behavior and needs of all living organisms.

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1]

[/quote]

Right. I am examining the social principles of freedom or entitlement and normative rules of behavior according to some social convention.

But I'm not limiting myself to examining only human society, I'm seeking a more fundamental and organic basis for the very concept of social convention and the normative rules that guides it, which is what "rights" describe.

I'm hardly alone in proposing a "natural rights" theory after all.

Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. These are sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.

That we disagree is hardly unique either, given the many thousands of years the subject has been debated, from Socrates to Ayn Rand.

So quit being such a self-assured putz about it and try to reason like and adult instead of acting like a child.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

But I'm not limiting myself to examining only human society, I'm seeking a more fundamental and organic basis for the very concept of social convention and the normative rules that guides it, which is what "rights" describe.

The normal definition of rights involves sentient consciousness, in terms of either granting rights to others (animals may be granted rights by humans, but cannot assert them independently) or claiming rights for oneself. The instinctive tendency for self preservation may be a contributing factor in the development of the human concept of individual rights, but it is not a right in itself, just as the vocalisation of early primates may be a vital factor in the evolution of human language, without truly being a language in itself.