More Ron Bashing

[reverendjeremiah]

Negative and positive rights:

Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery. Rights considered positive rights, as initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak, may include other civil and political rights such as police protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, national security, military, health care, social security, and a minimum standard of living. In the "three generations" account of human rights, negative rights are often associated with the first generation of rights, while positive rights are associated with the second and third generations.

Freedom of speech is not an inherent right regardless of the "negative" tag placed in front of it. NONE of these are inherent rights regardless of the neg/pos tags applied to them. Yeah, I can see where theis system could help in courts of law, but as far as inherent rights...there are none. And a nihilist would be the first to point that out.

See, look at this: Private property as a negative right? So now capitalism is an ingrained moral and civil right? So let me get this straight. If I walk onto someone elses land then I am infringing on their negative right to private property because I may be trespassing? You dont own that land inherently within the universe. The land doesnt belong to anyone. Who decides what properties make up a "fair trial"? Some of us think that a trial by jury is unfair, others find it fair. Where does the universality begin and the opinion stop? Some think Private property is only that which you are using at the moment, while others branch it out to wider spectrums such as owning land, owning people, or the claims of kings that they have divine right to rule by god.

Rights require a mind to exist, so they are subjective. However, as logic seems to be inherent to our minds, and negative rights are based on logic, rights are inherent in that specific context.

If a person honestly believes that people cannot own land (such as many native Americans did), and they just walk right into your home and help themselves, then they are infringing on the negative rights of the one who thinks he owns the house, but if that same house owner walks onto indian territory they would not consider it an infringement of their negative rights, nor a right to begin with.

So...according to Tiberius...the Indians in this context are illogical, since negative rights are logical, and the human mind is logical...therefore private property is logical...therefore those who do not believe in private property are illogical.

They are inherent in that one can justify them by arguing from the position of negative rights.

nice flip around Tiberius. Only by comparing this one imaginary thing with this other imaginary thing will we be able to see the inherent, non-imaginary reality of the thing.

A communist, on the other hand would take Private property off the list of rights all together and replace it with "right to eat". How about a right to fresh water? What asshole wrote this article? So I have a right to private property but not a right to drinking water? Why is right to be free from violent crime on the list and not a right to be free from war?

So a baby has a negative right to life. Therefore the mother cannot abort the baby because that would infringe on the negative rights of the baby. Now if the baby is unwanted, the baby is also infringing on the mothers right to private property, since she DOES own her own womb. She has the right to evict the unwanted from her property. Embrace the absurdity Tiberius, you cant escape it no matter how much you try you cannot reconcile this belief in rights. It is all social contracts, and not everyone signed those contracts or even believe in them.

I never understood why people have to argue their opinions on some invisible hocus pocus "measuring stone", or try to claim that "these are logical morals, but these are not logical morals." In reality logic is as inhuman as it can get. Why cant you just admit that all of this is in your head. They are BELIEFS. Its okay. I believe that just going out and killing people for no reason is wrong, but I will not try to cite logic or some fuzzy mystical measuring stone that I drew the conclusion from. It is CLEARLY just my opinion, and it is an opinion that is not shared by everyone.