The Son Also Rises.

[Seth]

Because property is a legal concept. Not a divine right.
You might acknowledge that verbally, but you still haven't got it mentally.
And never will.

Well, it's more than just a "legal" concept, it's a concept over which wars and revolutions have been fought repeatedly. It's a concept that will get you killed (and justifiably so) if you try to take someone else's property that they need for survival.

It may not be divine, but it's a right and it's based on the need of the individual to seek out and acquire the resources necessary for survival and to defend the exclusive possession and use of such resources using whatever force is required. It's a natural right that finds its origin in evolution and natural behavior.

And yes, government CAN do almost anything, but that doesn't make anything government does ethical, moral or acceptable. Government does not exist by divine right either, and when it interferes too deeply with the natural rights of men, then it must be abolished and replaced with something that produces greater liberty and happiness for the people.

[Blind groper]

Seth,

You still have not grasped the nature of human rights. There is no such thing as either divine rights or natural rights. A human right, when you get down to it, is simply a privilege granted by those in power to the people. Those in power can give such privileges or take them away. And they have done so, and those in power will do it again in the future.

In many parts of the USA right now, gays have not been given the privilege of being permitted to marry. That means they do not have a right to marriage, in spite of that being the moral thing for the government to permit. But those in power have prevented them receiving the privilege, meaning they do not have any such right, regardless of anything ou might claim about natural rights.

That does not make those rights unimportant, and I support the rights that have been designed by majority rule - democracy. The United Nations has the best set of such democratically designed rights.

Back to inheritance tax. A big part of the current argument is based on which viewpoint you take. If you see it from the viewpoint of those giving the inheritance, it becomes simply a part of their right to choose. If you look at it from the viewpoint of the heirs, then you can argue that they have no right to receive money that they have not earned, which is correct. But the right of the donor becomes the paramount on this issue. They have the right to choose what happens to their property after they die.

[Seth]

Seth,

You still have not grasped the nature of human rights.

No, you have not.

There is no such thing as either divine rights or natural rights.

As I've said, human rights can be derived from natural behavior.

A human right, when you get down to it, is simply a privilege granted by those in power to the people.

We disagree.

Those in power can give such privileges or take them away. And they have done so, and those in power will do it again in the future.

If this is true, then why were Hitler's acts a crime against humanity?

In many parts of the USA right now, gays have not been given the privilege of being permitted to marry.

Not all rights are natural rights. Some are indeed a product of the culture within which one lives, but there are fundamental natural rights that are common to every human being on earth, including the right to life, liberty, property and procreation. Certain subsidiary rights are a natural consequence of the foregoing four fundamental rights, such as the right to protect one's life against infringement by others, the right to defend one's liberty against infringement by others, the right to defend exclusive possession and use of property against infringement by others, and the right to procreate and raise one's children according to one's own beliefs.

I can go on, but the point is that my right to life, liberty, property and procreation is not subject to democratic apportionment or infringement. They are inherent and natural parts of my life that I cannot exist without and will, as a natural instinct, defend against intrusion by others.

Other lesser rights may indeed be regulated by government in the interests of a peaceful and stable society, but at least those four are fundamental and unalienable and are common to each and ever human being that exists or has ever existed, or will exist.

That means they do not have a right to marriage, in spite of that being the moral thing for the government to permit. But those in power have prevented them receiving the privilege, meaning they do not have any such right, regardless of anything ou might claim about natural rights.

See above.

That does not make those rights unimportant, and I support the rights that have been designed by majority rule - democracy. The United Nations has the best set of such democratically designed rights.

Almost. But not quite. The UN Charter of Human Rights still interprets rights, all rights, as you do, as being the product of and issued by the state, and it denies the fundamental right to be armed for self defense. The point of certain human rights not being "democratically" determined is that "democracy" is little more than a code-word for "tyranny of the majority." If no rights are set above the will of the majority, then anything can be done to anyone at any time the majority agrees to do so, and that makes mockery of the entire concept of rights to begin with.

Back to inheritance tax. A big part of the current argument is based on which viewpoint you take. If you see it from the viewpoint of those giving the inheritance, it becomes simply a part of their right to choose. If you look at it from the viewpoint of the heirs, then you can argue that they have no right to receive money that they have not earned, which is correct. But the right of the donor becomes the paramount on this issue. They have the right to choose what happens to their property after they die.

I agree. "They," being the owners of the property prior to their death, have the right to choose what happens to their property after they die. Not the heirs, and most certainly not the tyrannical majority facilitated by the jackbooted thugs with machine guns of government.

[Blind groper]

Seth

History shows that human rights are not inalienable, since they have been taken away from people many times. Life and liberty were not rights in the young American republic, since it had the death penalty and it kept slaves. Even self defense was not a right in most countries 200 years ago, since aristocrats were able to strike peasants at will (or rape their daughters) and any peasant that struck back would be executed.

Rights are just what the rulers permit, and can be given or taken away at the will of those rulers.

[JimC]

Seth

History shows that human rights are not inalienable, since they have been taken away from people many times. Life and liberty were not rights in the young American republic, since it had the death penalty and it kept slaves. Even self defense was not a right in most countries 200 years ago, since aristocrats were able to strike peasants at will (or rape their daughters) and any peasant that struck back would be executed.

Rights are just what the rulers permit, and can be given or taken away at the will of those rulers.

As a matter of political reality, that tends to be true. However, without going as far as saying that human rights automatically derive from some natural principle, in the manner of Seth, I think society needs to take a view that a certain set of rights are inalienable, and need to be enshrined by law or constitution, and publicly valued. All of society needs to regard them as beyond the reach of politicians and the party apparatus of the day...

[Seth]

Seth

History shows that human rights are not inalienable, since they have been taken away from people many times.

You don't understand what "unalienable" means in this context. Of course a powerful government can do whatever it wants to an individual and do so with impunity, there's proof enough of that. But the power (ie: the factual physical ability) to do a thing is distinguishable from the propriety or legality of doing so in the greater context of relations between civilized nations. Unalienable, in this context, means that no government or agent can take away that right by act of and under the justification of law at its whim and caprice.

Thus, Hitler's genocide, although perfectly "legal" under then existing German law, was not a lawful action because it violated the fundamental rights of the individuals he killed. In other words, fundamental or "natural" rights are see as being superior to acts of legislatures where conflicts arise as an a priori assumption. This does not mean that all such rights are permanently and absolutely immune from any and all regulation, but rather that where the state seeks to infringe on these fundamental rights it must do so only with the greatest of care and only under the most pressing of circumstances and only to the least possible degree absolutely necessary to achieve some legitimate governmental objective involving the balancing and adjudication of the equal, but competing rights of individual citizens.

The reason that I (and our Founders) characterize certain rights as "fundamental" or "natural" and inherent in the individual as opposed to inherent in the collective is specifically and precisely to place those rights above and superior to powers and authorities (not rights) of the state a priori.

The philosophical underpinnings of the system of natural law is founded in theism and the presumption that God exists and is the author of these fundamental rights, and that God's judgment is always superior to the judgement of the state. By calling them "God given rights" the founders made it explicit that the state (government) is always inferior in power and authority to God, and therefore cannot trench upon the "God given" rights held to be fundamental and unalienable. Again, this does not mean that these rights are immune from regulation, it means that they are deemed to exist a priori and entirely independent of the existence of, or assumed authority of an inferior tribunal (government) formed by men. The purpose is to make sure that this inferior tribunal never arrogates to itself the authority to either grant or revoke the fundamental rights of the individual.

That is what "unalienable" means in this context. It means that no government created by men has the inherent and plenary authority to revoke the fundamental rights of the individual. Any power any government can legitimately exercise in infringing on those fundamental rights must be carefully constructed so as to minimize, to the greatest degree possible, infringement on such rights that may be necessary in order to preserve society and the liberties of all citizens. (Ordered Liberty)

To reiterate, the physical power of a government to do a thing to the individual does not translate into the moral authority to do such a thing. Fundamental rights, being placed above the authority of government by design, are assumed to be superior and shall not be infringed except in the most exceptional and extraordinary of circumstances which are to be judged on an individual basis when a law infringes on one of those rights against the individual, not the collective. All Constitutional rights and their vindication apply to the individual, not the society as a whole, and therefore where there is a conflict between what the collective wants or needs and the fundamental natural rights of the individual, barring extraordinary circumstances applying to that particular situation, the base assumption is that the individual's rights prevail.

The UN Charter of Human Rights recognizes that all human beings have inherent dignity and rights simply as a function of being human beings, and such inherent dignity and rights are not authored by and do not originate in the inferior tribunal (government), they are a function of one's humanity, and that state actors must respect certain fundamental human rights in order to be recognized among the lawful and civilized states of the world. Those states that refuse to honor these fundamental rights are acting outside of the human polity at large and are beyond the pale of law. As lawless states beyond the pale (that's what it means), they have no protection under the law against other states physically intervening in their internal affairs to protect the natural and fundamental human rights of the occupants of the country.

Life and liberty were not rights in the young American republic, since it had the death penalty and it kept slaves.

Not true. First, the death penalty is a penalty that is imposed only when a person commits a crime that causes him to forfeit his protection under the law. One is born with these unalienable natural human rights and one enjoys them for life, unless and until one abuses the exercise of those rights to the detriment of the equal rights of other members of the society, at which point one can be judged to have forfeited some right through bad behavior.

Second, the issue of slavery is a complex political dance that took 75 years to reach its coda. It was the belief of the Founders that slavery was wrong, but political reality forced them to set aside that matter in order to get the Union established. But the intent was always to do away with slavery eventually. The Founders felt it was more important to ratify the Constitution and form the Republic first, and tackle the issue of slavery some other time. Had they insisted on banning slavery from the beginning, the Union would not have happened and the Republic would not include the then-slave-holding states. They would be two entirely different nations, and the Founders felt that such a construction would not long survive.

The factual and political considerations that took 75 years to eventually resolve, at the cost of more than 660,000 American lives did not and do not impeach the philosophy and intent of the Founders to make real the proposition that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The historical fact that the practical reality of the Republic did not attain the lofty goals expounded by the Founders for some time after formation of the Union does not mean that those "rights" did not exist. The existence of a right and the present inability to defend and vindicate the exercise of that right are two entirely different things, the former not being expunged or eliminated by the latter.

Even self defense was not a right in most countries 200 years ago, since aristocrats were able to strike peasants at will (or rape their daughters) and any peasant that struck back would be executed.

And such actions were beyond the pale of civilization. Also, the right of self defense is and has been universally recognized under such circumstances as a peer-to-peer right. Thus, the commoner might not be permitted to strike an aristocrat in self defense, he could always strike another commoner in self-defense. Thus the right is still extant, and natural because it's what anyone would do if they are unlawfully attacked by another, but it was "regulated" insofar as violating caste or class boundaries. In such societies, the aristocrats certainly had the right of self-defense against others of their station, and even those above their station depending on the culture.

But the very existence of these forms of government that provided plenary powers over the lives of others such as monarchy, were supported by the idea that the King could do no wrong because the King is either actually a god (ancient Egypt) or was appointed by God to rule (ancient England et. al.)

The purpose of our system is to repudiate any such authority, divine or otherwise, being invested in a single individual. The idea of democracy demands that each individual be acknowledged as having equal rights with all other individuals, and the purpose of government is to "secure the blessings of liberty" to the people, individually and as a whole. Thus the fundamental purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual against infringement by other individuals and to balance and adjudicate disputes between individuals where rights come into conflict, as they necessarily will.

Rights are just what the rulers permit, and can be given or taken away at the will of those rulers.

No, that is "powers." Governments don't have "rights," only individuals have rights. Governments have powers and authorities.

The ability to do a thing does not necessarily imply the right to do a thing. That is the basis of the idea of individual rights. The core concept is that individuals have rights that are natural, inherent, unalienable and superior to the powers of rulers, and that just powers are derived from the consent of the governed and such powers are limited in their authority to infringe on the fundamental natural rights of any, or all, individuals, as individuals. The collective has no greater power or authority to impose its will on the individual than any one of the individuals who comprise the collective has individually. The power of one individual over another is not multiplied by the number of individuals who seek to impose that power over the individual.

In a conflict between your exercise of a fundamental right (say the right to life) and my exercise of a fundamental right (say the right to seek out and take exclusive possession and use of resources needed for survival) the adjudication of that conflict, the balancing of the scales, is not tipped by the number of people who seek to invoke and vindicate one or the other competing rights. If I have a fundamental right to life, and in order to survive I must exercise my fundamental right to property so I can eat, your desire for the resources I have acquired and claimed exclusive use of is not multiplied by the number of people you have in your mob. My individual right weighs exactly equally with the aggregate desire of the mob to exercise it's individual rights in any adjudication of a conflict.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Your statement is essentially a religious one. You have erected a deity of some kind, whatever you call it, and ascribed 'inalienable' to this deity. It does not alter the historical fact that human rights are always arbitrary and awarded by those in power.

And no, the founders of the American republic did not oppose slavery. Most of them actually owned slaves, and they were entirely happy to own those slaves in order to earn more wealth. The 'inalienable rights' of life and liberty were just hypocritical mouthings by a bunch of total arseholes. As all politicians tend to be.

I support the United Nations list of human rights, since they are sensible and, if practiced, will result in an improvement in human welfare. But they are just as much a case of "given as a privilege by those in power" as any other right.

[Seth]

Seth

Your statement is essentially a religious one.

So what? There's nothing wrong with devotion to a matter of conscience or ethics.

You have erected a deity of some kind, whatever you call it, and ascribed 'inalienable' to this deity.

Yeah, my deity called "Reason." All worship Reason the Mighty!

It does not alter the historical fact that human rights are always arbitrary and awarded by those in power.

No, human rights have always been infringed, denied and manipulated by those in power, but the fundamental things apply, as time goes by.

And no, the founders of the American republic did not oppose slavery.

Yes, they did.

Most of them actually owned slaves, and they were entirely happy to own those slaves in order to earn more wealth

Some of them were, but so what? I explained to you how that worked out.

The 'inalienable rights' of life and liberty were just hypocritical mouthings by a bunch of total arseholes.

Beats ever-living shit out of your Marxist "I only got what the Overlords want to give me" slave mentality.

As all politicians tend to be.

True enough, but some are less assholish than others.

I support the United Nations list of human rights, since they are sensible and, if practiced, will result in an improvement in human welfare. But they are just as much a case of "given as a privilege by those in power" as any other right.

Come try and take my rights away and you'll find out who is "in power," and it ain't Washington or Obama. Therefore the 2nd Amendment.

[piscator]

BG's rights may stem from the pleasure of the Crown, but American rights are derived from the will of the governed. If that sounds circular, so does BG's reference to "Those in power", which assumes the ability to regulate or modify rights in the word "In power" yet completely disregards the collective pronoun, "Those" and its implied requirement for consensus. In America, those in elected power have simply the power to enforce the will of those who put them there. They are the ostensible servants, rather than the citizens, who are emphatically not "Subjects" of the pleasures or interests of a Crown.

[laklak]

Plus we got gunz.

[Blind groper]

There is no practical difference with respect to 'rights' between any democratic country. In the UK, they use the term, "the crown", to refer to the government. However, royalty has next to no power, so "the crown" is actually a democratically elected parliament.

But democratically elected or not, the powers that be in all nations are those at the top, and they determine what are recognised as 'rights' or not.

That does not make the people powerless, of course. We can still work to influence the government in constructive directions. Sadly, this influence also extends to big business and to less desirable lobby groups, who use their money and power to push government in undesirable directions. The classic example of this today is the gun manufacturing lobby in the USA, which spends (this is public knowledge) hundreds of millions of dollars each year to support their minions (like the NRA) and to directly bribe (campaign contributions) politicians, to get the outcome they want.

[Seth]

There is no practical difference with respect to 'rights' between any democratic country. In the UK, they use the term, "the crown", to refer to the government. However, royalty has next to no power, so "the crown" is actually a democratically elected parliament.

But democratically elected or not, the powers that be in all nations are those at the top, and they determine what are recognised as 'rights' or not.

That does not make the people powerless, of course. We can still work to influence the government in constructive directions. Sadly, this influence also extends to big business and to less desirable lobby groups, who use their money and power to push government in undesirable directions. The classic example of this today is the gun manufacturing lobby in the USA, which spends (this is public knowledge) hundreds of millions of dollars each year to support their minions (like the NRA) and to directly bribe (campaign contributions) politicians, to get the outcome they want.

Yes the NRA gets money from the gun industry. So what? That's one of the NRAs functions, to represent the gun industry before government. It's a trade association. It damned well better do so and also represent individual gun owners as they exercise their constitutional right to petition their government for redress of grievances because that's what we pay them to do with our membership dues.

No, the NRA does not bribe politicians because campaign contributions are not bribes, they are campaign contributions intended to help get politicians who protect and support gun rights elected, which is a perfectly lawful activity that the Supreme Court has explicitly approved.

As for the rest, we reject your slave mentality and constitute our government to be by, of, and for the people, exercising it's delegated powers by, and only by our express consent.

[mistermack]

It is bribery.
It's legal bribery. The Supreme Court is just as corrupt as the rest of the US politics.
They are appointed, for their known political bias. Nothing that they rule on can be considered untainted

Having said that, the US public get exactly what they deserve. If you are gullible enough to be swayed by campaigning, then you deserve to be shat on by cynical politicians and industries.

The same applies in the UK, but a bit less so. Our electorate are swamped by conservative propaganda, from conservative newspapers, the BBC and the rest of tv. They are too dumb to do anything about the bias, it's an accepted fact of life.

[laklak]

It's 'bribery' when it doesn't meet your personal political agenda, it's 'the will of the people' when it does. One man's ceiling etc. Lucky for me the NRA financially supports the will of the people, whereas Handgun Free America bribes politicians.

[Seth]

It is bribery.
It's legal bribery.

Er, if it's legal, it's not bribery, by definition.

The Supreme Court is just as corrupt as the rest of the US politics.
They are appointed, for their known political bias. Nothing that they rule on can be considered untainted

That's politics for ya.

Having said that, the US public get exactly what they deserve. If you are gullible enough to be swayed by campaigning, then you deserve to be shat on by cynical politicians and industries.

And you think this is unique to the US? How very ignorant of you.

The same applies in the UK, but a bit less so. Our electorate are swamped by conservative propaganda, from conservative newspapers, the BBC and the rest of tv. They are too dumb to do anything about the bias, it's an accepted fact of life.

So how, exactly, do you expect the electorate to a) become informed about the platforms of the various parties ; and b) exercise their right to support those parties or candidates whom they wish to have elected so that their interests can be represented in government?