A continuation from some other thread (homesexuality I think).

It does sound interesting so I'll start the topic with a clip from George Carlin, however I doubt Kyuu has this in mind when he says he doesn't believe in rights.

[youtube]4F1Lq1uFcAE[/youtube]

Rights are indeed a strange thing. I really want to get this topic on the road.

EDIT: Do we have rights? What are they? Who says so? etc.

My position is simple enough ... no rights are inalienable, all rights must be granted and most people (believing they have a specific "right") don't seem to understand that their possession of that specific granted right means that they have the responsibility to grant others that same right.

IOW I don't believe in rights as such, I believe in responsibilities ... I believe I have the responsibility to grant you (and you and you and you ...) freedom of speech and our perceived right to freedom of speech is because we all (well most of us, at least when it suits us) buy into that responsibility and grant others that "right", so much so that it has now become enshrined in law.

Kyu

Democracy; " In which you say what you like and do what you're told" (Dave Barry)

I agree with George in essence,although I think calling at "right" a "privilege" is splitting hairs in pragmatic sense;EG British common law is privilege based,not rights based.

I have rights guaranteed by the Australian constitution, common law and by custom.Those rights are upheld by the rule of law,underpinned by usually only implicit threats of force and various sanctions (fines for example).

Our "rights" can be and are taken away at the whim of government.

EG:

Habeus corpus,which dates from Magna Carta (1215CE)

Ignored by the US in 1942,and again under the terms of The Patriot Act.

The US government allowed their constitution to be ignored under the communist witch hunts of Joe McCarthy in the 1950's.

Much stronger gun controls are wanted by around 70% of Americans, but this has not happened, and is not likely due largely to the influence of self serving and corrupt lobby groups such as the NRA.

Habeus corpus is currently STILL ignored by the Australian government by its treatment of asylum seekers. Indigenous Australians did not have equal rights under the law until 1967. Before that it has been assumed they were a dying race,helped along by cholera,measles,alcohol, syphylis etc,Everyone just thought if we just ignored 'em they would eventually just die off, so we didn't even bother to count them in the census.BUT they didn't bloody well die off,their population actually GREW! .Boy,were WE embarrassed! That meant we had to stop stealing their children to turn them into white children. Do you know,on some stations,(ranches) they actually began PAYING the aboriginal stockmen almost as much as a WHITE man,in the the late 1960's!

An observation is that people who spend a lot of time screaming their tits off about their rights do not seem to give equal time to the notion of their responsibilities or to the idea of equality in a free society.. These are what I call big "L" Libertarians. Their life philosophy may be summarised by a British expression; "Fuck you Jack,I'm OK"

Australia does not have a Bill of Rights

Britain does not have a written constitution




From Wiki:

Quote:The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed.

The UK has no single constitutional document comparable to those of other nations. It is therefore often said that the country has an "unwritten", uncodified or de facto constitution.[1] However, the majority of the British constitution does exist in the written form of statutes, court judgments and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions (more than most countries except New Zealand and Israel) and the royal prerogatives.

0000000000000000000000000000000-----------------------------------------000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Tangent

The link below is for anyone interested in how Australia has treated indigenous people here. We have no claim to any moral high ground

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio...ed_Kingdom

From the other thread:

(July 1, 2009 at 6:46 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 30, 2009 at 3:35 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Only a right in law and thus it is merely a legal distinction, copyright is just a name. It could be called anything ("act of copy" 2001 or whatever) ... it happens to be called what it is.

Were you trying to use that argument to prove that rights exist?

Well given that it is a right, yes. I don't think a society can function without some basic rights laid down by laws.

OK ... do any rights exist in the absence of legal (or "force" by another agent) mechanisms? If so which ones (be specific please)?

Kyu

(July 2, 2009 at 5:24 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: OK ... do any rights exist in the absence of legal (or "force" by another agent) mechanisms? If so which ones (be specific please)?

This seems begging the question to me. How would you define "right" in the absence of legal mechanisms?

Not trying to verbalise what Adrian means, but I would say that some shared social agreements are needed to have some form of stability in a group of individuals. Part of these agreements will be dealing with rights.

I think laws are there to protect the rights that were held since the beginning of humanity through our evolved morality. We didn't kill each other because we understood the benefits of working together, we were a very social species. Later when we created civilization, we created laws that reflected those rights, not the other way around (although I'd agree that today it has turned into that sort of thing).

Adrian,

I don't think you answered my question. PR, I didn't say the mechanism had to be legal.

Kyu

Quote:I don't think you answered my question. PR, I didn't say the mechanism had to be legal.

Are you saying there can be no law without a formalised legal system and/or codified laws?


At what point does 'custom' become 'law'? I'd argue when backed by the threat of sanctions, explicit or implied.

I'm not criticising,merely asking for clarification.

(July 4, 2009 at 8:22 pm)padraic Wrote: Are you saying there can be no law without a formalised legal system and/or codified laws?

No.

Kyu

(July 4, 2009 at 8:31 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Adrian,

I don't think you answered my question.

Well I did, but I'll rephrase it:

Yes, I think rights exist without laws. I think laws are made to protect rights in a society. As for specific rights, I would say the right to free speech, the right to property, the right to life, the right to death (or choosing when you die), etc. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.