oblivi, i think you have a point, but still ownership will exist
only the entities who will own the assets will be completely different than the actual users of the assests or of the capital
good example are the offshore shell companies - everything that exists is owned (even externalities are privatised), but owner is irrelevant
Topic: The human rights - page 2. (Read 3204 times)
We are moving towards a society where no one owns nothing, so im not sure about your first statement. Open source, decentralized society, free as in freedoms society. It's the only way for a true futuristic society.
You own yourself and your things.
You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.
You have the right to be left alone with your things.
Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.
If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.
You can do everything else as you please.
You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.
The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.
You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.
You have the right to be left alone with your things.
Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.
If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.
You can do everything else as you please.
You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.
The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrKF9hgHMI
Where are your human rights when the police and the army kill 43 future school teachers...
Some countries live in savagery.
Do you mean the mexicans should just let their rigths go, because of this?
I mean, if the government can easy take your life, that Human rights are nonsense words.
That's why you have to focus on your rights, man.
You own yourself and your things.
You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.
You have the right to be left alone with your things.
Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.
If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.
You can do everything else as you please.
You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.
The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.
You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.
You have the right to be left alone with your things.
Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.
If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.
You can do everything else as you please.
You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.
The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrKF9hgHMI
Where are your human rights when the police and the army kill 43 future school teachers...
Some countries live in savagery.
Do you mean the mexicans should just let their rigths go, because of this?
I mean, if the government can easy take your life, that Human rights are nonsense words.
This isn't rocket surgery. A government which bans effective self-defense (the prime human right) can democide with impunity.
You own yourself and your things.
You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.
You have the right to be left alone with your things.
Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.
If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.
You can do everything else as you please.
You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.
The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.
You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.
You have the right to be left alone with your things.
Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.
If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.
You can do everything else as you please.
You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.
The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrKF9hgHMI
Where are your human rights when the police and the army kill 43 future school teachers...
Some countries live in savagery.
Do you mean the mexicans should just let their rigths go, because of this?
I mean, if the government can easy take your life, that Human rights are nonsense words.
You own yourself and your things.
You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.
You have the right to be left alone with your things.
Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.
If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.
You can do everything else as you please.
You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.
The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.
You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.
You have the right to be left alone with your things.
Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.
If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.
You can do everything else as you please.
You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.
The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrKF9hgHMI
Where are your human rights when the police and the army kill 43 future school teachers...
Some countries live in savagery.
Do you mean the mexicans should just let their rigths go, because of this?
You own yourself and your things.
You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.
You have the right to be left alone with your things.
Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.
If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.
You can do everything else as you please.
You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.
The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.
You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.
You have the right to be left alone with your things.
Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.
If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.
You can do everything else as you please.
You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.
The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrKF9hgHMI
Where are your human rights when the police and the army kill 43 future school teachers...
Some countries live in savagery.
Such is the law, and with good reasons. Prison for non-violent crimes don't leave a good taste to me as well. But you argued that the right to education should be abolished because in an extreme case force could be necessary. Why this, if you waive this argument for the right to property, where the case is a common uccurence?
That one, as with other feel good rights, are constructed in the belief that it can come from nowhere, just because it is written, and it feels good. It is the same with shoes, you don't have the right to shoes, but the market can supply them easily. There is no shoe problem. And if there were, for instance in a very poor place, it would not solve the problem to make it a right. It would only serve to elevate some people above the others to administer the right, and make someone else pay, and make people freedomless regarding the shoe choice, and to waste resources, that is, making everyone less rich.
Such is the law, and with good reasons. Prison for non-violent crimes don't leave a good taste to me as well. But you argued that the right to education should be abolished because in an extreme case force could be necessary. Why this, if you waive this argument for the right to property, where the case is a common uccurence?
Thanks for the "warning" 
I see your line that you want to remove any right, if there can be a hypothetical construction wherein you would need to use force to guarantee this right?
Well not remove it - it doesn't exist naturally. I see your line that you want to remove any right, if there can be a hypothetical construction wherein you would need to use force to guarantee this right?It's not so hypothetical either, situations arise all the time.
Edit: Note the logic: You can not have a right that violates the rights of others, because the rights are for all. That is why they are called human rights (in general), not the right for person X and person Y but not person Z...
I have never heard of anyone forced to teach, but pickpockets are stopped by violence everyday, and prisons all over the world are full of thieves.
Property, unlike most other human rights, even does discriminate between X and Z, as their amounts of property are usually different. Yet to the UN and many constitutions it is seen as a human right, and listed among them, and only hard communist states don't recognize it to some extent.
You own yourself and the things you have rightfully acquired. You will need force to keep your things. No talking about amounts, they have to be different of course. If two persons have the same, and one of them makes or trades something, he might be better off. This is not a violation of rights. Stopping a thief is also not a violation. Putting them in prison - questionable.
No longer does anyone have the right to protect themselves and their wealth with just force against those given unlimited power.
Thanks for the "warning" I see your line that you want to remove any right, if there can be a hypothetical construction wherein you would need to use force to guarantee this right?
Well not remove it - it doesn't exist naturally. I see your line that you want to remove any right, if there can be a hypothetical construction wherein you would need to use force to guarantee this right?It's not so hypothetical either, situations arise all the time.
Edit: Note the logic: You can not have a right that violates the rights of others, because the rights are for all. That is why they are called human rights (in general), not the right for person X and person Y but not person Z...
I have never heard of anyone forced to teach, but pickpockets are stopped by violence everyday, and prisons all over the world are full of thieves.
Property, unlike most other human rights, even does discriminate between X and Z, as their amounts of property are usually different. Yet to the UN and many constitutions it is seen as a human right, and listed among them, and only hard communist states don't recognize it to some extent.
Good wording, but there is a right to act against violence, by yourself or in an association. The problem with your active right to protection against violence, means that there are two types of individuals, those who has the right to take, and those who have not. In addition, a logical next step, as seen from those with that privilege, is to take away your own right to self defence. So in practice, what you can hardly imagine being without, does not seem to conform to having the same rights for all.
I guess this is what opposes liberals, libertarians and anarchists :-)
I've been thinking a lot about these issues, and my idea is that a violence monopolist is unavoidable. If there is no violence monopolist, that vacuum will attract one. In the end, rules are always imposed by a violence monopolist, whether it is a formal state, a war lord, or the local maffia boss, or your wife with a rolling pin :-) That is a sad fact about the world: power comes out of the barrel of a gun, and rules are imposed by power.
So if there is no organized violence monopolist, then the violent associations in self-defense will end up becoming one, and impose whatever rules it likes, with decision procedures (aristocratic, oligocratic, democratic, theocratic or whatever-cratic) and you can kiss your fundamental rights good-bye. And if there is an organized violence monopolist (a "state"), then you can kiss your fundamental rights also good-bye, but there may be some way to impose part of them in some kind of constitutional way.
Fair enough.
Good wording, but there is a right to act against violence, by yourself or in an association. The problem with your active right to protection against violence, means that there are two types of individuals, those who has the right to take, and those who have not. In addition, a logical next step, as seen from those with that privilege, is to take away your own right to self defence. So in practice, what you can hardly imagine being without, does not seem to conform to having the same rights for all.
I guess this is what opposes liberals, libertarians and anarchists :-)
I've been thinking a lot about these issues, and my idea is that a violence monopolist is unavoidable. If there is no violence monopolist, that vacuum will attract one. In the end, rules are always imposed by a violence monopolist, whether it is a formal state, a war lord, or the local maffia boss, or your wife with a rolling pin :-) That is a sad fact about the world: power comes out of the barrel of a gun, and rules are imposed by power.
So if there is no organized violence monopolist, then the violent associations in self-defense will end up becoming one, and impose whatever rules it likes, with decision procedures (aristocratic, oligocratic, democratic, theocratic or whatever-cratic) and you can kiss your fundamental rights good-bye. And if there is an organized violence monopolist (a "state"), then you can kiss your fundamental rights also good-bye, but there may be some way to impose part of them in some kind of constitutional way.
You have to force someone to become a teacher? First of all it is nowhere in the world where education works like that. Second even if it were, it doesn't follow to remove the right to education. It would be sensible to change the system so that teachers get an incentive to teach, in simple words get paid.
One should make the distinction between active rights and passive rights. Passive rights are things of which it is forbidden for someone to interfere with your attempt to obtain it. Active rights which entitle you to obtain stuff - as Erdogan indicates - are the right to enslave others.
The passive right to education means that no person may act such, no state may pass a law, that forbids you to attempt at getting education. One could think of a kind of totalitarian state where it is forbidden to learn how to write, except for a privileged elite. Anybody trying to learn to read and write, or anyone attempting to teach you reading and writing skills, would then be punished. In that case, your passive right to education is violated.
The active right is to require people to take assets from others so as to pay you a teacher, or to enslave someone into teaching you.
The passive right to the use of drugs would allow people to buy and sell drugs as they like it. The active right to the use of drugs would mean that the state has to force people to give up assets and services so as to provide you with drugs.
One could think that active rights have no place in a free society. However, that is not true either, because "protection against violence" can be an active right. The passive right is the right to self-defense. Its active version is the right to have a police force protecting you. It is hard to imagine a free society where there is no active right against violence. So in any case the state has to take by force some assets from some, in order to finance the police force in order to give you your active right of protection against violence.
Good wording, but there is a right to act against violence, by yourself or in an association. The problem with your active right to protection against violence, means that there are two types of individuals, those who has the right to take, and those who have not. In addition, a logical next step, as seen from those with that privilege, is to take away your own right to self defence. So in practice, what you can hardly imagine being without, does not seem to conform to having the same rights for all.
You have to force someone to become a teacher? First of all it is nowhere in the world where education works like that. Second even if it were, it doesn't follow to remove the right to education. It would be sensible to change the system so that teachers get an incentive to teach, in simple words get paid.
One should make the distinction between active rights and passive rights. Passive rights are things of which it is forbidden for someone to interfere with your attempt to obtain it. Active rights which entitle you to obtain stuff - as Erdogan indicates - are the right to enslave others.
The passive right to education means that no person may act such, no state may pass a law, that forbids you to attempt at getting education. One could think of a kind of totalitarian state where it is forbidden to learn how to write, except for a privileged elite. Anybody trying to learn to read and write, or anyone attempting to teach you reading and writing skills, would then be punished. In that case, your passive right to education is violated.
The active right is to require people to take assets from others so as to pay you a teacher, or to enslave someone into teaching you.
The passive right to the use of drugs would allow people to buy and sell drugs as they like it. The active right to the use of drugs would mean that the state has to force people to give up assets and services so as to provide you with drugs.
One could think that active rights have no place in a free society. However, that is not true either, because "protection against violence" can be an active right. The passive right is the right to self-defense. Its active version is the right to have a police force protecting you. It is hard to imagine a free society where there is no active right against violence. So in any case the state has to take by force some assets from some, in order to finance the police force in order to give you your active right of protection against violence.
Thanks for the "warning" I see your line that you want to remove any right, if there can be a hypothetical construction wherein you would need to use force to guarantee this right?
I see your line that you want to remove any right, if there can be a hypothetical construction wherein you would need to use force to guarantee this right?Well not remove it - it doesn't exist naturally.
It's not so hypothetical either, situations arise all the time.
Edit: Note the logic: You can not have a right that violates the rights of others, because the rights are for all. That is why they are called human rights (in general), not the right for person X and person Y but not person Z...
Thanks for the "warning" I see your line that you want to remove any right, if there can be a hypothetical construction wherein you would need to use force to guarantee this right?
I see your line that you want to remove any right, if there can be a hypothetical construction wherein you would need to use force to guarantee this right? You have to force someone to become a teacher? First of all it is nowhere in the world where education works like that. Second even if it were, it doesn't follow to remove the right to education. It would be sensible to change the system so that teachers get an incentive to teach, in simple words get paid.
In that case, it is a voluntary action. A pupil can always ask, that is not by force. But if he demand it as a right, force has to be used.
(Ok, I am slowly dragging you into a trap here. Had to say, else it would be a scam, which is stealing your reality, which is a rights violation...).
You have to force someone to become a teacher? First of all it is nowhere in the world where education works like that. Second even if it were, it doesn't follow to remove the right to education. It would be sensible to change the system so that teachers get an incentive to teach, in simple words get paid.
Jump to: