Basic Human Rights

[Immanuel Can]

The supreme hoodwink is: yes, you are yours, but alone you ain't diddly.

I wonder what Lace's alternative is. If she thinks you don't belong to yourself, and there's no God to whom you could belong, then to whom does she think she belongs?

I'd be interested in hearing the answer to that.

If you look around at all we are part of, and how that immense system operates and interacts on so many levels

Well, that's just a fact, not a value. And it misunderstands the phrase "a part of." Because we can be "a part of" many things that do not own us. I am "a part of" the human race: that does not imply they own me. I am "a part of" the male sex: that does not mean all males own me. I "am part of" a country, but they do not own me. I am likewise "a part of" a cultural heritage, a family, a neighbourhood, a consumer group, a school district, a tax base...and many other things, none of which have any right to own me.

So your answer is "the immense system"? The system is the thing to which you think you owe allegiance?

Does it own you? If not, who has the right to make decisions as to what you are to do or be? You've already said it's not yourself, and it's not God...so who is it?

[Lacewing]

Well, that's just a fact, not a value. And it misunderstands the phrase "a part of." Because we can be "a part of" many things that do not own us. I am "a part of" the human race: that does not imply they own me. I am "a part of" the male sex: that does not mean all males own me. I "am part of" a country, but they do not own me. I am likewise "a part of" a cultural heritage, a family, a neighbourhood, a consumer group, a school district, a tax base...and many other things, none of which have any right to own me.

So your answer is "the immense system"? The system is the thing to which you think you owe allegiance?

Does it own you?

I do not see ownership, as I've stated. I do not see a reason to owe allegiance to what I'm naturally a part of -- allegiance implies something "other", something separate, right?

who has the right to make decisions as to what you are to do or be? You've already said it's not yourself, and it's not God...so who is it?

I did not say I cannot make decisions. Don't twist my words. I simply do not share your ideas about "rights" and "ownership".

Are you able to look around at all we are part of, and consider how that immense system naturally operates and interacts on so many levels, independent of hierarchical stories about gods or man over all else. Do you recognize how much man has imposed his stories onto it for his own self-serving purposes?

[henry quirk]

Many humans share the views of many humans, all throughout history. What difference does that make, really?

It makes a difference cuz some things are true and some are false. And it matters cuz, typically, when folks claim to have special knowledge that only they can access, these folks are lookin' to get a leg up and make a profit on that supposed special knowledge (fleecin' the rubes). I make no claim to knowing anything that you yourself don't already know.


One of the main questions that comes up in philosophy is "What do we know?" And many people will claim different answers to that. It's one of my favorite questions, along with WHY people claim to know.

Good questions: so, Lace, how and why do you know what you know?


Okay. It sounds nice, but I'm saying that there's more to it from my perspective. We are all PRODUCTS of so many factors (family, human history, culture, etc.), yes? So, I'm not so sure man really belongs to himself. Rather, he's part of a product line with built-in flaws and limitations, which are being upgraded across generations... perhaps.

Sure, my parents, as example, brought me into the world, loved me, raised me: does that mean they can lay claim to me? Demand service or servitude? Of course not. They can no more claim me than history or culture.


I'm not sure this statement is true, Henry -- I can imagine that people all throughout history have thought in various ways of belonging. Some theists may think they are nothing without a god... and that they own nothing, rather they belong to god. Some ancient peoples may have thought they belonged to their tribe... or their families/ancestors... rather than themselves. Some people (such as myself) think in terms of being part of a larger system/network, and don't think in the terms you've laid out.

Seems to me: the intuitive sense of ownness is universal. Every man has it. Sure, thruout history, various cultures, sects, religions, bloodlines etc. have laid claim to people, and yeah, many of those laid claim to have evidenced submission or resignation but not a one truly, for example, believed he was property of the King or warlord or the shaman. As I say elewhere unless he's worn to the nub and broken, no man willingly accepts the yoke (of inferior position or degrading life or an actual yoke). As I say, any slave, unless driven mad, will, given the opportunity, seek freedom.


I don't know that this is the whole truth.

It's not...it was an example only.


Can we believe any of it?

If it involves anyone telling you they have a better handle on your living than you, and they should have authority over you, no.

If it involves the compromise, the accommodation, meetin' in the middle, no.


So, you evidently give humans much more credit than I do.

I do. As I say elewhere: the long haul movement of man, cultures, politics, etc. is away from the slaver king and toward a wholesale recognition, respect for, and defense of, individual liberty.


Or is it simply focused on immediate control and profit? I honestly don't think people typically mastermind much further as you seem to suggest. I think their drives are mainly in the moment, to serve their ego and needs.

Seems to me institutionalizing certain systems, like governance, is a sure sign of long term planning.


Henry, it simply doesn't make sense to separate ourselves from the systems we are part of.

In some things this is true. I live in Earth, a -- from my perspective -- vast cluster of interlocking systems. In a sense, I'm a part of this cluster, but I'm autonomous within it. I'm a part that gets to, as I say, bend, end, and begin causal chains. I'm not, as you might say, a product or event, but an agent. I'm a person, not a thing.

Some systems ought to be resisted. Mob rule and it's pretty sister democracy, the state, any form of corporatism, these are examples of systems that parasite on man, that are used by men to use men.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, that's just a fact, not a value. And it misunderstands the phrase "a part of." Because we can be "a part of" many things that do not own us. I am "a part of" the human race: that does not imply they own me. I am "a part of" the male sex: that does not mean all males own me. I "am part of" a country, but they do not own me. I am likewise "a part of" a cultural heritage, a family, a neighbourhood, a consumer group, a school district, a tax base...and many other things, none of which have any right to own me.

So your answer is "the immense system"? The system is the thing to which you think you owe allegiance?

Does it own you?

I do not see ownership, as I've stated. I do not see a reason to owe allegiance to what I'm naturally a part of -- allegiance implies something "other", something separate, right?

No, it merely asks you to say who gets to make decisions for you.

If it's you, you own yourself. If it's the state, they own you. Somebody has to make decisions, such as where you live, what you eat, who your friends and enemies are, what you do with your time...and you say it cannot be yourself and cannot be God.

So who is it?

[henry quirk]

You can be a free agent -- even free from yourself -- moment to moment.

I don't see how. If you're irresponsible, that's you choosin' to be irresponsible. No one gets to cast off their self-direction or self-responsibility.


One's identity and concepts of ownership can be a prison.

As I say, folks can self-hoodwink as sure as they can be hoodwinked by others. If you believe your identity (by which I mean who you are, and not the silly social construct nonsense that pollutes the so much of the day-to-day) is lacking, surely you self-hobble.

[Lacewing]

Does it own you?

I do not see ownership, as I've stated.

No, it merely asks you to say who gets to make decisions for you.

No, ownership implies more than that. All kinds of entities (parents, religion, government, cultures, etc.) get to make decisions that affect me, but they don't own me. Just as I make decisions for myself, but I don't think in the terms of owning myself.

If it's you, you own yourself.

That's the way you frame it. I don't frame it that way because ownership implies more, and ignores a lot.

How about answering what I've asked you:

> Are you able to look around at all we are part of, and consider how that immense system naturally operates and interacts on so many levels, independent of hierarchical stories about gods or man over all else?

> Do you recognize how much man has imposed his stories onto it for his own self-serving purposes?

[Lacewing]

...

Henry, thanks for your responses. I'll answer tomorrow.

[Immanuel Can]

I make decisions for myself, but I don't think in the terms of owning myself.

But then, you do. For the disposition of yourself and your resources are at your own discretion. And Henry's right.

Are you able to look around at all we are part of, and consider how that immense system naturally operates and interacts on so many levels, independent of hierarchical stories about gods or man over all else?

Loaded question. You're essentially asking me, "Are you able to agree with me, or are you unable to see?" Hilarious.

Transparent, yes...but still hilarious.

No, I cannot answer a question that is loaded to be answered only two ways, both of which are also untrue. But the fault is not mine.

[Gary Childress]

So you're going to pick up the entire cost of everybody's medical procedure? You're fine with doing that? So nobody ends up paying, except you?

You must be very, very rich if you can do that for everyone. I don't think Bill Gates has that kind of cash. I've got to call "bluff" on that one.

Everyone pays into it with their share of taxes and everyone is eligible to use it. And doctors get paid for their services.

Well, we know how Medicare works, of course, Gary; the question is not that, though. The question is, "Can Medicare be a basic human right?"

The answer's obviously "No." Medicare does not exist naturally, is not available everywhere, was at one time not even invented, was not promised or endowed by God, is not evidently tied to any property of human beings, and requires the taking of some people's money to serve the interests of another group. None of that is the sort of thing that can be called a "right" at all. It's merely a contingent human arrangement -- nowhere guaranteed by the order of the universe.

Courts don't exist naturally either but some believe that everyone has a basic human right to a fair trial if accused of a crime. Guns don't exist naturally but some people believe that it is a basic right to own guns (at least those are supposedly rights that are in the US Bill of Rights according to some). I don't see how those can be basic human rights according to your criteria. Do you believe that the US Bill of Rights isn't a list of basic rights? As commonsense seems to point out the only thing guaranteed by the "order of the universe" is that we die. So if you want to use that as the standard you have a basic right to die and that's about it. (And maybe you have a right to be oppressed by someone stronger than you. That seems to happen rather "naturally" too.)

And in answer to your assertion, it is NOT a question of "can medicare be a basic human right." The question is whether healthcare in some shape or form can/should be a basic human right. Medicare would be a particular means of administering to that right.

[Sculptor]

You owe your entire liberty to left wing reforms for the last 200+ years. Started by people such as Hobbes, Locke, Paine.

That's Classical Liberalism, not Socialism.

Liberalism is the basis of socialism extended to working people, not just the middle class.
Maybe you should think about it sometime.
Maybe you should think sometime, because you never do.
You owe all your freedoms to socialism.

[henry quirk]

You owe all your freedoms to socialism.

No, socialists, yesterday, today, tomorrow, only hobble.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=32456

[RCSaunders]

You owe all your freedoms to socialism.

I'll just forward that to my friends in Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. They just don'e seem to understand how free socialism has made them.

[henry quirk]

You owe all your freedoms to socialism.

I'll just forward that to my friends in Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. They just don'e seem to understand how free socialism has made them.

Sculptor, or someone, will, of course, point out those aren't real socialisms, or that they didn't fail but were interfered with by dirty debbil capitalists, or that your dirty debbil capitalist mind prevents you from fully appreciating the glories of, for example, the Cuban health and education systems.

[Immanuel Can]

Courts don't exist naturally either but some believe that everyone has a basic human right to a fair trial if accused of a crime.

Well, that's easily explained: courts can limit freedoms. So the "right to a fair trial" would be derivative of that.

But things like "guns" cannot be a human right. And that brings us to an important point, I think: your post uses the words "basic" and "human." There are things that are conferred "rights," that are given by a particular society, but maybe aren't even available elsewhere. But they aren't either "human" or "basic," because they are not dependent at all on the fact of one's basic humanity.

All people have a right to life, liberty and property, precisely because that is the condition upon which they arrive in this world. But they do not arrive in this world with guns or Medicare, far less a living wage or an education...as great as those things might be.

Do you believe that the US Bill of Rights isn't a list of basic rights?

It mixes the two. Life, liberty and property are the basic human rights. The right to vote or to have a gun are conferred rights -- legitimate as such, as merely conferred rights of citizens, but not guaranteed to anyone not a US citizen, and definitely not a feature of one's "basic humanity."

As commonsense seems to point out the only thing guaranteed by the "order of the universe" is that we die.

Well, no, that's not true. You can't even die unless you've already been alive. So the right to life is a primary human right. And if, as I believe, you have volition, then you have also a right to freedom that comes with that. And, if as Locke said, the ability to have and manage some sort of property is part of being free and stewarding one's freedom, then you have a right to property as well.

"Right to die"? Why would we even think we have that? We certainly don't need a "right" for anything that is bound to happen automatically. But maybe you can find a way to make a case for it...

maybe you have a right to be oppressed by someone stronger than you. That seems to happen rather "naturally" too.

No, it's not automatic at all. More importantly, though, it conflicts with rights we DO know we have. Locke speaks about that too, actually.

And in answer to your assertion, it is NOT a question of "can medicare be a basic human right." The question is whether healthcare in some shape or form can/should be a basic human right.

I think that misunderstands what "basic human" can mean. You might want to argue that we have a moral right to care for others, of which providing for their health might be a duty. But in a survival-of-the-fittest world, how would we justify that claim? And it's certainly not something that is intrinsic, the way basic human rights are supposed to be. It has to be another conferred right, a right promised by a particular society, rather than something universal.

That is, unless you believe "Love your neighbour as yourself" is a God-given universal. (Which, of course, I do.) But that would include far more than Medicare, I would suggest.

[Immanuel Can]

Liberalism is the basis of socialism...

No, it's not. Classical Liberalism affirms the rights of the individual above and against the demands of others. Socialism denies rights to the individual, and accords all primarily rights to the Collective. That's why Socialism has been, in every real-world case in history, totalitarian and dictatorial. It's highly illiberal, actually.