Topic: The human rights (Read 3188 times)

(Red colorization mine.)

(Liberty: the absence of artificial constraint. Freedom (non-individual): the sum of the respective probabilities of the social microstates society could occupy.)


Social entropy is not inherently detrimental; however, there are detriments inherent to its “mitigation” (e.g., world war [via mass-tribalism], wage-slavery [via the maintenance of ownership], and global economic depression [via the maintenance of owners]).

Perhaps we've been stuck on a double negative because you're referring to a reduction of entropy while I've referred to an increase in entropy; however, I believe we both are referring to freedom as the maximum degree of disorder and randomness possible in a society. Unless I'm mistaken (wouldn't be the first and won't be the last) this is accurately described as the maximum entropy.

Liberty is in itself a constraint. Liberty is a social contract which limits freedom and requires external processes to maintain. The energy required to maintain liberty cannot be used to produce work.

By artificial I assume you mean "unnatural" or "introduced." How can we be certain that removing an artificial constraint like government doesn't in turn allow for another more detrimental constraint to emerge? Perhaps a hypothetical non-optimal government based on liberty would appear less absurd when viewed in contrast with other times throughout human history. Perhaps comparing against the past could show evidence that while not perfect, some government reduces the net social entropy by some factor compared to whatever fills the void when it's not present.

Government is not intended to prevent social entropy; social entropy is unavoidable. Government is intended to reduce the net entropy when compared relatively to a society without government. A government built upon human rights and liberty has shown to be the least detrimental form of government while properly administered.

Freedom was said to be related to entropy: entropy decreases when constraint is reduced. This means that “liberty,” as I used the word, is
“the lack of artificial constraint.” Removing artificial constraints would serve to reduce entropy within a system.

It would follow, then, that, by the very thermodynamics of these universes wherein it presently exists for us, government, as it is conventionally know (i.e., hierarchical and non-optional), would be an absurdity were it genuinely intended to perform its commonly prescribed function, for it would assure that very thing wherefor it is claimed to be intended to prevent: the increase of social entropy.

Even though we're hijacking this thread, this is an interesting exchange.

So you agree "when man denies himself government, and this does not exist to claim his power" describes a potential increase in the cumulative unique output of a society by eliminating the drag created by government, and thus increasing the degree of freedom; assuming the power vacuum remains unfilled.

The quoted portion of the above sentence doesn't describe liberty as accurately as it does freedom for they are different things entirely; liberty requires government while freedom does not. Freedom is like "survival of the fittest" while liberty attempts to provide an equal opportunity for survival at the cost of varying degrees of freedom.

Freedom is the cumulative amount of unique output a system may (in the statistical sense) produce. It is related to entropy (sum of probabilities of possible microstates).

That would accurately describe freedom as opposed to liberty.

Nay, when man denies himself government, and this does not exist to claim his power.

Yes, when the government cedes unnecessary power naturally and without objection there exists liberty...

Liberty exists when the ceding of powers is both unnecessary and unrealized.

Liberty is not accurately synonymous with freedom, for liberty is a compromise between freedom and responsibility in society. Human rights are a keystone of liberty since they form the foundation that liberty is intended to protect.

Legal rights exist for those who will never know freedom. Liberty exists for those who will.

Very well said.

I will never understand the aversion some people have to the existence of human rights...

Human rights is a rational decision made by the individual who chooses to exercise a right. Many governments acknowledge the existence of human rights and form their legal systems around them, others don't.

Just because you have a right doesn't mean another won't take it away or try to. Human rights is a model for people living in a society which is supposed to help rationalize the actions of an individual to other rational people after that individual has chosen to exercise their human right. Human rights is as simple as right and wrong. Murdering or stealing are both wrong, defending life or protecting your valuables is right...

The OP is correct, there are universal human rights and it doesn't matter if you agree or not. It makes no difference whether the law recognizes these rights or whether a persons rights are violated. Hypothetically, if an intruder is strangling your mother, or abducting your child, or committing any other forcible felony, you have a natural human right to harm or even kill them on the spot if it's the fastest way to end that situation. If you have the ability to stop these situations and you choose not to act resulting in the death of a loved one, a rational person would suffer and live in deep regret that they didn't choose to act. "Right" and "wrong" at work again...

If there are consequences to your decision to act and you save the life of a loved one but go to prison for it, then it doesn't mean you didn't have the right to do what you did; it only means that your rights are being forcibly violated. A rational person wouldn't regret saving the life of a loved one, even in the face of prison. They would likely be more upset that they are being penalized for doing the "right" thing...

The world doesn't owe you a living, if people don't exercise rights for fear of retribution then they will lose them or never even realize them. If people don't choose to assert the existence of human rights then they choose to live as property under the command of other "superior humans" who determine their fates.

Human rights exist just the same as the words I type here. Before I typed them they existed in my mind, and a rational person would agree that other people have thoughts too. I chose to exercise my thoughts just as one would choose to exercise a human right.

The definition of human rights differs everywhere.
USA criticizes China on its Human Rights record. China criticizes the US on its record. 

“[R]ights” consist of those powers that are withheld from hierarchies. Liberty consists of not having to withhold them.

Who is that "man" you are referring to?

Yeah, slavery is good. Don't steal yourself, man.

That is what the students did and here is how they ended.

Human rights is anice idea, which being chased, always causes big troubles for everyone. The world is a jungle and one has to fight for the power in order to survive. Human right activists are the ones who are eaten alive.

You own yourself -> wtf, is this some pathetic manifesto at revolution?
you own the space around you -> was already privatised...
you own your ability to move around -> really? cars on credit, highway tolls, parks sold to developers, private woods etc.
you own your clothes -> so far, until China produces the cheap shit and it is bought on credit most of the time... therefore you are not the owner
you own your reputation -> if reputation can be owned, then social network owners have it; but reputation does not fall into usus, fructus, abusus area
you own the consequences of your actions -> no, you just pay for them
you own the reality you live in -> people who believe they are Gods end in asylums
Nobody should steal those things from you. -> part of them is nothing that can be owned, part of them was already stolen/taken away/sold cheap and nobody gave a fuck if it was right or not

You own yourself, you own the space around you, you own your ability to move around, you own your clothes, you own your reputation, you own the consequences of your actions, you own the reality you live in. Nobody should steal those things from you.