Sucks to be an incompetent burgler

[Seth]

'm not "the people." I'm an individual and I have individual rights, some of which supersede and overrule the collective desire

The collective decide your rights for as long as you choose to be part of it (i.e breathe within a countries borders). Want to decide what your individual rights are then time to find a desert island

Any rights I have come from the society I'm born in, without that society there is no rights including the right to exist

Here I'm leaning towards Seth (although there are certainly times when the collective process needs to override individual choices)

Taken at face value, your description is Orwellian to a worrying degree...

That's just MrJonno trolling. He's taking the complete opposite position to Seth's rugged individualism.

That's what I'm thinking too, but as I said, he's damned good at playing the role of delusional Marxist if he is. I've never seen him slip up or admit it even once.

[Seth]

In your opinion.

There's no natural rights. There's what society and/or the constitution grants. And yes, before you waste our time, I know your constitution grants that, but I'm talking wider than that. There simply aren't natural rights.

That's what you think, but you're wrong. You're positing a tautology: "Rights exist only as a function of their definition as rights by the society."

This is tautological because it is recursively defining rights qua rights because they are rights because society says they are rights, but in your construct society is defining rights so that they can only be rights because society defines them as rights.

This is circular logic. There is no actual objective definition of rights to create a firm rational and logical basis for analysis.

Thus the definition of what a "right" actually is must be something other than tautological navel-gazing.

This is why I define a right in more concrete terms:

"A right is a freedom of action that may be defended against intrusion by another."

This provides a concrete logical and rational basis for examining the notion of "rights" and how they are arranged in a hierarchy.

Both nature and man relegate "rights" to a hierarchy, with some rights being "more important" than others. The means and methods of the adjudication and balancing of competing rights in any social structure, natural or human, are varied and can be complex or simple, but the arrangement of the hierarchy is independent of the nature and existence of the fundamental natural rights themselves. And not all rights are "fundamental natural" rights in that fundamental natural rights may be logically and rationally derived through observations of nature and natural behavior of all living things, which again provides an objective basis for defining what the concept means.

Many "rights" are secondary or tertiary to fundamental natural rights and so might be better classed as "derivative rights" rather than "fundamental" or "natural" rights. But their objective nature remains the same. A "derivative right" is still a freedom of action that can be defended against intrusion by others. Where societal acknowledgment and defense of that exercise of a right falls in the social hierarchy is a much, much more complex issue.

But the fundamental natural rights exist independent of and not as a function of society, but as a function of the nature of the living organism that exercises that freedom of action. That's what I mean by "natural rights."

[pErvinalia]

I know what you mean by "natural rights". It's bollocks. It relies on your opinion of what a right should be.

[Seth]

I know what you mean by "natural rights". It's bollocks. It relies on your opinion of what a right should be.

Now there's an erudite and carefully supported rational and logical argument...

As if YOUR definition of "rights" is not utterly dependent on what your opinion is too. At least I have some sort of rational argument supporting my thesis while all you have is "bollocks."

[pErvinalia]

my definition has nothing to do with my opinion. It's based on the dictionary and reality.

[Seth]

my definition has nothing to do with my opinion. It's based on the dictionary and reality.

Sez you. How about you defend your thesis? After all you're one of the ones who vociferously objects when I apply a dictionary definition of "religion" to the acts and arguments of Atheists. At least I'm willing to defend that thesis with some rational argumentation.

You just assert something and disrespect any contrary argument as if it's a revealed truth that you're right and I'm wrong. You know what they call that kind of thinking? "Religion."

[pErvinalia]

Except that we've spent hundreds of pages debunking this crap at rdf and ratskep. We don't just proclaim it out of the blue. But most of us (those of us who still have the "pleasure" of reading your rants) are sick of having the same tired old arguments over and over again.

Wiki - "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;" - i.e. subjective. Not absolute nor objective.

[Seth]

Except that we've spent hundreds of pages debunking this crap at rdf and ratskep.

No, you spent hundreds of pages evading, dismissing and deriding my arguments, which is entirely different from "debunking" them.

We don't just proclaim it out of the blue. But most of us (those of us who still have the "pleasure" of reading your rants) are sick of having the same tired old arguments over and over again.

Well, then open your mind a bit and try to think of something new to say.

Wiki - "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;" - i.e. subjective. Not absolute nor objective.

And I say that Wiki is at best incomplete and at worst wrong.

Care to debate that? Or would you rather cling to your religious beliefs?

[Cormac]

In your opinion.

There's no natural rights. There's what society and/or the constitution grants. And yes, before you waste our time, I know your constitution grants that, but I'm talking wider than that. There simply aren't natural rights.

Society doesn't grant rights.

We create society and its structures to protect rights.

[Cormac]

Except that we've spent hundreds of pages debunking this crap at rdf and ratskep. We don't just proclaim it out of the blue. But most of us (those of us who still have the "pleasure" of reading your rants) are sick of having the same tired old arguments over and over again.

Wiki - "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;" - i.e. subjective. Not absolute nor objective.

Isn't that "We" an appeal to collective authority?

And can you clarify what precisely was debunked and by whom on RDF and Ratskep? What makes or made those fora authorities to respect?

And that Wiki definition is neutral as to your assertion that "society" grants rights.

[JimC]

In your opinion.

There's no natural rights. There's what society and/or the constitution grants. And yes, before you waste our time, I know your constitution grants that, but I'm talking wider than that. There simply aren't natural rights.

Society doesn't grant rights.

We create society and its structures to protect rights.

Humans can assert that they have rights, and call them "natural rights" if they wish. Such an assertion may be a valuable meme within the ecosystem of memes about society, as it pragmatically helps to stop the balance towards the collective tipping too far.

However, the existence of such rights remains a human construct (however valuable), not in the same league as the existence of giraffes in Africa...

[Cormac]

In your opinion.

There's no natural rights. There's what society and/or the constitution grants. And yes, before you waste our time, I know your constitution grants that, but I'm talking wider than that. There simply aren't natural rights.

Society doesn't grant rights.

We create society and its structures to protect rights.

Humans can assert that they have rights, and call them "natural rights" if they wish. Such an assertion may be a valuable meme within the ecosystem of memes about society, as it pragmatically helps to stop the balance towards the collective tipping too far.

However, the existence of such rights remains a human construct (however valuable), not in the same league as the existence of giraffes in Africa...

They are indeed human creations - but they precede society, rather than being granted by it.

In other words - we create them, and then we create society to vindicate and protect them.

[pErvinalia]

In your opinion.

There's no natural rights. There's what society and/or the constitution grants. And yes, before you waste our time, I know your constitution grants that, but I'm talking wider than that. There simply aren't natural rights.

Society doesn't grant rights.

We create society and its structures to protect rights.

No we don't. We coalesce into societies for safety. Part of ensuring safety is agreeing on a set of pragmatic rights. Without society agreeing to enforce and defend individual rights, there would be no rights in any practical definition of the word.

[pErvinalia]

Except that we've spent hundreds of pages debunking this crap at rdf and ratskep. We don't just proclaim it out of the blue. But most of us (those of us who still have the "pleasure" of reading your rants) are sick of having the same tired old arguments over and over again.

Wiki - "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;" - i.e. subjective. Not absolute nor objective.

Isn't that "We" an appeal to collective authority?

And can you clarify what precisely was debunked and by whom on RDF and Ratskep? What makes or made those fora authorities to respect?

There were literally hundreds of pages (and quite possibly hundreds of threads) on this subject on the two forums. They are an authority on the fact that this has been discussed at length with Seth before, and nothing was "asserted" out of the blue.

And that Wiki definition is neutral as to your assertion that "society" grants rights.

Really? So where do you think they come from in regards to that quote?

[pErvinalia]

In your opinion.

There's no natural rights. There's what society and/or the constitution grants. And yes, before you waste our time, I know your constitution grants that, but I'm talking wider than that. There simply aren't natural rights.

Society doesn't grant rights.

We create society and its structures to protect rights.

Humans can assert that they have rights, and call them "natural rights" if they wish. Such an assertion may be a valuable meme within the ecosystem of memes about society, as it pragmatically helps to stop the balance towards the collective tipping too far.

However, the existence of such rights remains a human construct (however valuable), not in the same league as the existence of giraffes in Africa...

They are indeed human creations - but they precede society, rather than being granted by it.

In other words - we create them, and then we create society to vindicate and protect them.

Society has existed since before language. What are you talking about?