Sucks to be an incompetent burgler

[MrJonno]

Wolf packs declare rights and defend them. Lion prides declare rights and defend them. Ant colonies define rights and defend them.

Actually they declare government, all 'higher' organisms form governments of one form or the other with proper hierarchy and decision making authorities. What they don't have are rights.

[Seth]

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.

So if you're bored, then why don't you just shut the fuck up and fuck off somewhere else and let the adults discuss?

[Seth]

Wolf packs declare rights and defend them. Lion prides declare rights and defend them. Ant colonies define rights and defend them.

Actually they declare government, all 'higher' organisms form governments of one form or the other with proper hierarchy and decision making authorities. What they don't have are rights.

Wrong. The Alpha male has the sole and exclusive right to mate with the Alpha female and can (and will) defend this right against intrusion by any other male in or outside of the pack. The Omega male has very few rights.

There is no "government" in a wolf pack, there is a hierarchy of rights and an adjudicatory mechanism (survival of the fittest). Wolf packs don't codify sets of rules and have jury trials when an Omega wolf tries to mate with the Alpha female, the Alpha male simply kills the Omega wolf...or the Omega wolf kills the Alpha male and becomes the Alpha male.

"Government" is nothing more than a sophisticated adjudicatory mechanism for the resolution of conflicts over the exercise of rights by individuals. It comes AFTER individuals come into conflict over the exercise of rights as a method of reducing the use of violence as an adjudicatory mechanism. Government does not precede the expression of rights by the individual, it is created after the fact to apportion out and balance the exercise of pre-existing rights.

Government doesn't grant the Alpha wolf rights, the Alpha wolf defends his natural rights against intrusion by others because he can and because he is driven to do so by natural instincts, and those natural rights pre-exist any sort of social structure at all. A lone male wolf may fight to mate with an Alpha female in a pack without regard to the supposed "government" you posit and may become the Alpha male if he is successful. Of course he may have to fight the rest of the pack to get to the Alpha male, but that is merely the rest of the pack protecting the existing hierarchy of rights. If they are defeated however, they will submit to the new Alpha wolf after force has been used to adjudicate the dispute over mating and leadership rights of the pack.

[MrJonno]

Government by brute strength and the recognition of that strength is still government and is used to be the most common form among humans, luckily we have progressed and found societies that aren't constantly fighting each other or worrying about being stabbed in the back are stronger overall

[Seth]

Nonsense. What evidence or reasoning do you have for the assertion that "we create society and its structures to protect rights"? We have never been an individualistic species. Why would you assume that we would organise our communities around the basis of individual rights? Communities have always been about safety from before we even had language. Why would you assume that that would be turned on its head and the focus changed to individual rights?

I think the semantics are just confusing the issue.
Looking back at tribal society, you sort of had the right not to be robbed or murdered because the tribe would probably punish the offender. Does that really count as a right? Tribes have rules even if they don't have a codified legal system, but you could argue that the concept of rights can't exist unless they could be codified into an existing law system. Meaning the concept of law must exist before the concept of right.

Well, yes, sort of. But go farther back than human tribal relations. Go back to basic organismic behavior.

The root law of all laws is the Law of the Jungle: Survival of the fittest. The ability of an organism, any organism, to prevail in a conflict over the actions and resources necessary for survival of the individual organism is the most fundamental "law" there is. It is from that law that all other natural laws proceed, and from which we infer the concept of rights.

This is why there are natural rights formed from natural laws. Not all rights are natural, and not all laws are natural, but the fundamental ones are, and it is from those fundamental laws we begin building the hierarchy of rights, beginning with a few essential natural rights.

[Seth]

Off the top of my drunken head, a legal system is about rights, limitations on rights, and responsibilities.

Therefore the concept of rights must pre-exist the legal system and the government that administers that legal system, otherwise there is no reason for a legal system to exist.

[Seth]

There is a thought somewhere in there. Societies are NOT about individual rights. They are about rules to coexist.

Correct. More precisely societies are about the balancing and adjudication of conflicts between the exercise of rights by individuals. But the rights pre-exist the society. Society merely regulates their exercise in the interests of successful coexistence.

[MrJonno]

How does a desire to survive give you a natural right to survive or even to try?. That simply does not follow.

Its perfectly nature to want to have sex/reproduce which in many cases in nature is a stronger desire than to even survive but that hardly gives you the 'right' to rape people

There is no link between desire/needs and natural rights

[Cormac]

Well if you are serious, then you shouldn't have any trouble backing your claim up. You can't actually do it, can you?

I've given reasoning, but you've ignored it, like you've repeatedly ignored my calls for you to provide your own reasoning. My initial comment was in rebuttal to Seth's "natural rights" claims. That's the context of my quote. If I'm wrong about my claim, then that doesn't validate Seth's claim that they are natural. You may be right, but we'd have no way of knowing, as so far all you've done is repeat a baseless claim over and over.

Rights are meaningless concepts without the means to have them protected and enforced. I can claim a right to free beer for the rest of my life. Woohoo for rights! Oh. Societies weren't "created" despite your repeated claim (and your repeated refusal to back that claim up). Societies are the natural state of existence for Homo sapiens, whether they are formal societies or were informal communities. To assert that societies were "created" is a nonsensical step, and defies the principles of parsimony in explanation. You've added a 'bit' to the natural history of H.sapiens, so you get to explain why you have added that bit. Because it fits your preconceived libertarian notions is not a valid reason. Can you actually give a valid reason?

I've yet to see you post your reasoning. I've seen a repeated assertion, and a reference to debates on RDF and on Ratskep.

I don't accept that rights are meaningless just because they can't be protected or enforced.

For example - is a woman's right to not be raped void or rendered non-existent because in the moment of the crime, that right can't be protected or enforced?

Societies evolved out of families. Are you claiming that a family is a society? Fine - but if so, you're really stretching.

Who said I'm a libertarian?

As it happens, if we're going all the way back to the early humans and beyond, then I'd argue that rights and "society" evolved together. Social structures though, evolve to provide a stable structure within which to weigh up competing rights and apportion between them. Those rights may simply be mating and reproduction rights, or the right to feed from prey first, and so on.

But what we think of when we say "society" is usually something a little more complex. A tribe, or a village, or something more complex still. The rudiments of what would become towns and later cities. ALL of these come into being through human invention or rules and regulations to weigh up competing rights - or claims to put it another way.

And in the mix of all of this, we have the evident fact of sharing and so on amongst our animal relatives. In my view, rights evolved from this behaviour.

All this is, of course, my opinion. It is one I'm happy with.

I am open to being shown where my opinion is erroneous.

It won't be the first time or the last time I've been shown the error of my ways.

[Seth]

Well if you are serious, then you shouldn't have any trouble backing your claim up. You can't actually do it, can you?

I've given reasoning, but you've ignored it, like you've repeatedly ignored my calls for you to provide your own reasoning. My initial comment was in rebuttal to Seth's "natural rights" claims. That's the context of my quote. If I'm wrong about my claim, then that doesn't validate Seth's claim that they are natural. You may be right, but we'd have no way of knowing, as so far all you've done is repeat a baseless claim over and over.

Rights are meaningless concepts without the means to have them protected and enforced.

Correct. The problem is you refuse to go back to first principles, you're stuck in examining human societies and not examining the root structures of what "societies" are and why and how they come to exist.

To rephrase your statement above, "Rights are meaningful concepts when the means to have them protected and enforced exist."

But you wrongly think that this must inevitably be enforcement and protection BY SOCIETY, and you ignore the fundamental truth of nature that rights are FIRST vindicated and protected by the individual who claims the freedom of action as a right and then successfully defends that freedom of action against intrusion by others.

Society is merely a group dynamic of achieving the same result in a more organized and beneficial manner, but society does not create the rights that are to be defended, it merely uses the power of the collective to enhance the adjudication and resolution of conflicts over the exercise of pre-existing rights by individual members of the collective.

The rights, at least some of them, pre-exist the society and are a function of the necessary natural behavior of all living organisms, and there for they are "natural rights."


I can claim a right to free beer for the rest of my life. Woohoo for rights! Oh. Societies weren't "created" despite your repeated claim (and your repeated refusal to back that claim up). Societies are the natural state of existence for Homo sapiens, whether they are formal societies or were informal communities. To assert that societies were "created" is a nonsensical step, and defies the principles of parsimony in explanation. You've added a 'bit' to the natural history of H.sapiens, so you get to explain why you have added that bit. Because it fits your preconceived libertarian notions is not a valid reason. Can you actually give a valid reason? [/quote]

[Cormac]

. I am serious though, that rights are not created and not granted by society.

Sorry to seem to be taking the Jonno/rEv side, but are you sustaining that rights exist by nature and that they still exist in a society that overtly denies them (e.g., a society where you must have an authorisation to leave your home town, or where you may be detained without trial at the will of the Prince or his secret police)

Well, I have a deep sympathy for the "Rights of Man" declarations back in the day.

I have no illusion that there is such a thing as "natural rights" - but I would argue that rights evolved directly along with humans - and precede social structures. I'd argue that social structures evolved on the coat-tails of rights - to provide stable structures within which competing rights could be weighed up and decided upon.

But just because a right cannot be vindicated, doesn't mean that as human beings, we don't recognise them.

For example - a woman who is raped doesn't have her right to not be raped voided just because she is unable to fight off her assailant.

[Seth]

How does a desire to survive give you a natural right to survive or even to try?. That simply does not follow.

Yes, it does. A right is a freedom of action that may be defended against intrusion by others.

Its perfectly nature to want to have sex/reproduce which in many cases in nature is a stronger desire than to even survive but that hardly gives you the 'right' to rape people

Actually, it does. In the natural world the "right" to procreate is asserted all the time, based on biology. Constraints (intrusions) on the free exercise of that right (freedom of action) are constructed by the society within which the organism lives and are based on natural, evolved functions and behaviors that enhance the survival of the species. Wolves have developed behavioral norms in re procreation that denies the fundamental right to procreate to the Omega wolf and protects that right for the Alpha pair.

The proscription on the free exercise of the natural impulse to procreate created by human society was created as a RESPONSE TO the free exercise of that behavior in order to advance some other behavior that is more beneficial to the species. But the right to procreate at will precedes the adjudication of the free exercise of that right where it comes into conflict with the free exercise of the right NOT to procreate as expressed by the other partner. The cart does not arrive before the horse, it arrives afterwards.

There is no link between desire/needs and natural rights

Yes, there is. You are unable to comprehend it because you cannot imagine or comprehend the idea that rights come from anywhere BUT the collective. That doesn't make you correct.

[Cormac]

Jonno actually believes what he says. He is quite authoritarian. But in a sense, he is right. There are no rights that aren't granted to you by society. The problem for Jonno is that he doesn't believe in constitutions, despite the fact that they genuinely work.

I believe in order and society because without it most of humanity dies, I can't believe there are many people out there who don't take that view

That doesn't mean I believe in any order/society I support those that ensure everyone them has a minimum quality of life or if you prefer 'rights', but the minimum wage, a guarantee to food, healthcare and housing are every bit in fact more important than freedom of speech. I also believe that sometimes you have to obey the law even if you don't agree with it as law and order is vital to my survival and if people start pick and choosing we are all at risk. A good example is soft drugs I think they should be legal BUT if I or someone else breaks the law I accept that the government has been given the right by the people to punish me

When it comes to constitutions I'm ok with those that structure how government works, how laws are passed but those that start including philosophical absolutes simply do not work (ie in the US). If you can't have absolute freedom of speech which no country has then you should not have a constitution that says you do.

On the whole my views are basically moral relativism, no absolute good or evil, no absolute wrong or right, everything in life is a grey and we do our best to muddle along

I'm ok with nearly all of this, and in particular, the last sentence.

[Svartalf]

. I am serious though, that rights are not created and not granted by society.

Sorry to seem to be taking the Jonno/rEv side, but are you sustaining that rights exist by nature and that they still exist in a society that overtly denies them (e.g., a society where you must have an authorisation to leave your home town, or where you may be detained without trial at the will of the Prince or his secret police)

Well, I have a deep sympathy for the "Rights of Man" declarations back in the day.

I have no illusion that there is such a thing as "natural rights" - but I would argue that rights evolved directly along with humans - and precede social structures. I'd argue that social structures evolved on the coat-tails of rights - to provide stable structures within which competing rights could be weighed up and decided upon.

But just because a right cannot be vindicated, doesn't mean that as human beings, we don't recognise them.

For example - a woman who is raped doesn't have her right to not be raped voided just because she is unable to fight off her assailant.

Given that man is a pack/social animal, I9'd be of a mind that the concept of rights coevolved with us, and our social structures as soon as we had enough brains to evolve the idea...

Unlike Seth, I don't believe that animal have, or defend any rights, even if some of our rights may indeed derive from territoriality.

[pErvinalia]

Well if you are serious, then you shouldn't have any trouble backing your claim up. You can't actually do it, can you?

I've given reasoning, but you've ignored it, like you've repeatedly ignored my calls for you to provide your own reasoning. My initial comment was in rebuttal to Seth's "natural rights" claims. That's the context of my quote. If I'm wrong about my claim, then that doesn't validate Seth's claim that they are natural. You may be right, but we'd have no way of knowing, as so far all you've done is repeat a baseless claim over and over.

Rights are meaningless concepts without the means to have them protected and enforced. I can claim a right to free beer for the rest of my life. Woohoo for rights! Oh. Societies weren't "created" despite your repeated claim (and your repeated refusal to back that claim up). Societies are the natural state of existence for Homo sapiens, whether they are formal societies or were informal communities. To assert that societies were "created" is a nonsensical step, and defies the principles of parsimony in explanation. You've added a 'bit' to the natural history of H.sapiens, so you get to explain why you have added that bit. Because it fits your preconceived libertarian notions is not a valid reason. Can you actually give a valid reason?

I've yet to see you post your reasoning. I've seen a repeated assertion, and a reference to debates on RDF and on Ratskep.

I don't accept that rights are meaningless just because they can't be protected or enforced.

For example - is a woman's right to not be raped void or rendered non-existent because in the moment of the crime, that right can't be protected or enforced?

Societies evolved out of families. Are you claiming that a family is a society? Fine - but if so, you're really stretching.

Who said I'm a libertarian?

As it happens, if we're going all the way back to the early humans and beyond, then I'd argue that rights and "society" evolved together. Social structures though, evolve to provide a stable structure within which to weigh up competing rights and apportion between them. Those rights may simply be mating and reproduction rights, or the right to feed from prey first, and so on.

But what we think of when we say "society" is usually something a little more complex. A tribe, or a village, or something more complex still. The rudiments of what would become towns and later cities. ALL of these come into being through human invention or rules and regulations to weigh up competing rights - or claims to put it another way.

And in the mix of all of this, we have the evident fact of sharing and so on amongst our animal relatives. In my view, rights evolved from this behaviour.

All this is, of course, my opinion. It is one I'm happy with.

I am open to being shown where my opinion is erroneous.

It won't be the first time or the last time I've been shown the error of my ways.

I don't particularly agree with you, but at least you've given some reasoning. That's all I wanted. Ultimately both of us can only give opinions, as there simply isn't a way (that I can think of) to materially evidence this at all. Regardless of the semantics, defensible rights are provided by society, so they are definitely not "natural" like Seth asserts. That was all I was really trying to say.