Topic: Prove to me objective "rights" exist. - page 8. (Read 9591 times)

+1

just because its small it didn't mean that it didn't work, your logic is failing.

Italy is a very small state. It's hardly collateral worth controlling.

the people was not protected, or happy. Stalin was suffering from paranoia. Soviet was not the only totalitarian system:
Italy.

The Soviet Union...

wrong! as long the totalitarian society 'protect' the people, and the people feel that they achieve something, the society goes happily on.

If I had slaves, I wouldn't want them without the freedom to live lives with some leisure. Otherwise, they aren't very productive.

Nobody's interests are served in a totalitarian society unless you want the majority of the human masses gradually made extinct. Heh, which might be an inevitable scenario.

My only point is awareness and avoiding blind trust.

Consider that vast majority of countries approved this:

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

You probably consider Newtonian physics "proven" because most physicists and a lot of other people agree it is reasonable approximation of reality. Similarly, I can easily consider universal human rights "proven" because most people agree that everyone should have these rights. IMHO it's silly to argue beyond this point, we should argue about the soundness of the human rights concept itself.

Have you ever lived in totalitarian society? From my experience, I must strongly disagree with you that the rights depend on means to enforce it! I was born in Czechoslovakia, literally few kilometers from iron curtain. It was plainly impossible to use strength and power of oneself to obtain entitlements like freedom of speech, except trying to flee West and risk being shot or imprisoned plus having caused problems to whole family for the attempt. It was very important for us to have illegal broadcasts and other means of support from the West, to know that someone somewhere believes that we have these rights despite our government and law prevents us to exercise them. Radio Free Europe wasn't at all force that could enforce anything. But it accelerated the decay of communist regime to the extent that when the opportunity came, nobody wanted to defend the regime. Otherwise, whole Eastern Europe could have ended in civil war like Yugoslavia or Libya.

He already had Ragnar as his last last last username.

See above bolded areas for subjective words.

You should use "Ragnar Redbeard" as your next user name.

At a syntactic level, subject and object are fundamentally the same.

Any two relands, x and y, must always share a common medium.  If, suppose, you were to say "x and y are absolutely different from each other," then they would still share the common medium of "absolute difference."

So, if subject and object are fundamentally the same, reaching an objective conclusion about the distribution of human rights (or lack thereof) must also include a subjective component.

If someone thinks people objectively have certain rights, then they do.  But if someone else thinks people objectively do not have rights, then they don't.  It's not either/or; it's both/and, either/or, and neither/nor (depending on who is determining).  In other words, people figure out for themselves.  Neat eh?  The principle distributes to everyone (syntactically and objectively) in that they get to choose.  And, they have their own subjective opinions about the matter.

And, if it's a computational Universe, then at the highest level I would expect a sum determination, though not necessarily a utilitarian one.

An author's opinion or your opinion that objective rights do not exist is subjective.  There are two ways of really looking at the world and the cosmos--man is a product of chance and natural selection or man was made in the image of God. 

If you believe rights are a legal construct only, then rights are government given and can be government taken, at any time.  If you believe in Natural Law or unalienable rights, then governments are established to safeguard those rights. 

Many classical writers and even some of the Enlightenment saw objective rights no different than the laws of the universe, mathematics, and other laws that exist whether man recognizes them or not. 

I may be ignorant of gravity but it is there; I may not want 2+2 to equal 4 but it is so...universally. 

In Orwell's 1984 the state may have convinced the populace that 2+2 can equal 6 but it does little in the way of truth. 

Think about it. 

 

Shut up, Atlas.

So there is nothing inherently righteous about the law? It doesn't apply to you if you do not wish to follow it (assuming you have the might to evade its purported consequences)?

I am glad this is going smoothly.

Wow, you finally get it.  Congratulations.

Objective rights don't exist.  Rights are legal constructs to enable society to run more efficiently. 

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

Read up on this guy - he does it better

Right - an entitlement of power or good.

Objective - Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Applies to a universal human goal, that is in fact universal across all humans.

I guess what would be helpful is if you define "objective", and "rights", and go from there.

If there is isn't a concise universal understanding of those two words and their usage, then everyone will differ in their application. Start with an axiom and go from there is what I'd suggest.

Yes, yes. Very good. Now you understand why I would prefer the government weaker. You prefer it stronger.

It's all preferences.