The Right to Life?

[MarcusA]

If you are dissatisfied with your life, you are at liberty to improve it.

[Tank]

Yes you are

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Generally, when we talk about rights, we are talking about privileges that we can assert against governing authorities, whoever they may be. The right to life in the USA is something that the government has to observe when dealing with its citizens. It not absolute (no right is). Under the political philosophy that we adopted in the Declaration of Independence, certain rights are held to be "inalienable" - they cannot be taken away from the individual. They can be superseded, however, by other considerations. Jefferson said that the existence of these rights is "self-evident", and that they come from "the Creator". That could mean a deistic or theistic God, or the laws of nature - either is an acceptable interpretation. I think "self-evident" means that, based on our common human experience, our existence is more tolerable if we acknowledge these rights.

The right to life that an individual has basically means that he/she can enforce against the government/legal or political authorities the right not to have his/her life taken away arbitrarily by the government. One of the purposes of government is to protect these individual rights.

If you are talking about a general "right to life" to be enforced against Nature, it does not exist. Nature can remove our lives anytime it "wants". But the government can't (or it isn't supposed to be able to). So, to summarize, rights are privileges that we have that arise from our common human experience that we can enforce against governments, and which governments are supposed to acknowledge, subject to some other right or power superseding them. Life is one of those rights. Or, at least that is how it is supposed to be in the USA. 

[Icarus]

^ Well done commentary Ecurb.

[billy rubin]

i find rights to be a very, very interesting subject.

if rights are privileges to be asserted against governments, do they still exist in the absence of a government?

if two people are marooned on a desert island with no governing authority, do i have a right to defend myself if the other guy wants to survive by eating me?

the best definition i have been able to come up with for rights is that a right is a privilege that it would be wrong to deny.

this instantly brings up the question of right and wrong.

i would say that where there is no right or wrong, there are no rights.

^^^this is a theoretical definition. not a legal one

[MarcusA]

A right is a privilege.

[MarcusA]

A woman who cannot access abortion by law has had all of her privileges taken away.

[Asmodean]

if rights are privileges to be asserted against governments, do they still exist in the absence of a government?

Conceptually, sure, they may. Practically, however... Perhaps, but in that situation, you may be better off having a suitably long column of tanks to be able to successfully assert and defend them.

if two people are marooned on a desert island with no governing authority, do i have a right to defend myself if the other guy wants to survive by eating me?

If you assert that right and successfully defend it, you probably do. Note that your nation may lay certain claims on you even outside its territory, which could result in you exercising certain rights, then being unable to go home unmolested. In that situation though, your rights for practical purposes would be whatever you and that other person have agreed them to be. If you agree not to murder each other, you have a right not to be murdered. If you agree to "stay out of each other's heads," you have the right to free thought, etc.

the best definition i have been able to come up with for rights is that a right is a privilege that it would be wrong to deny.

Mmh... I'm not sure I agree with that definition. It's... not wrong, but personally, I'd say that a right is a broadly-enough granted privilege or a broadly-enough agreed upon "social-contractual" obligation. As in, if you and enough "influence" in your society think that you deserve something - then you do. Terms and conditions may apply.

i would say that where there is no right or wrong, there are no rights.

^^^this is a theoretical definition. not a legal one

I'm working with philosophical rather than legal too, and I agree, though from a opposite direction. Right and wrong arise from the abovedescribed agreements. If we both agree not to murder each other - well, then murder is wrong. If we do not - then it is not. At least, not by consensus. So, it's more "where there are no rights, there is no right and wrong," but again, this one is a matter of framing.

[Recusant]

I think that the concept of rights precedes government, even if not described with that term. In any long-term aggregation of people, there must be some sort of agreement on the basic elements of group interaction. I wrote a longer item elsewhere on the idea of "inherent rights" from which I'll quote a snippet:

To exist as a species, human beings must recognize inherent worth of other human beings because of our nature as reasoning, social animals that do not possess any inherent hierarchy imposed by biology. That inherent worth is manifested by inherent rights.

[Icarus]

I think that the concept of rights precedes government, even if not described with that term. In any long-term aggregation of people, there must be some sort of agreement on the basic elements of group interaction. I wrote a longer item elsewhere on the idea of "inherent rights" from which I'll quote a snippet:

To exist as a species, human beings must recognize inherent worth of other human beings because of our nature as reasoning, social animals that do not possess any inherent hierarchy imposed by biology. That inherent worth is manifested by inherent rights.

Would that it was true.  "Agreement on the basic elements of group interaction"  "Because our nature as reasoning animals"  The spectacular division of the U.S.citizenry, of late, has shot those scholarly notions all to hell.

I cheerfully subscribe to the philosophic intent.  Unfortunately, about a third of my fellow Americans are armed and ready to cause an insurrection if they do not have their way. more than a few of them are quite convinced that the disaster in Maui was caused by space lasers, or bombing at the very least.  The unholy cabal did it. Reasoning animals? not quite.

 





 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The social contract or agreement is in danger of breaking down in the USA. Even to the point that some woman from my home state feels like she can write a letter and call a federal judge in another state, call her a slave nigger, and threaten to kill her. This has existed under the surface forever, but Trump gave everyone permission to voice these negative thoughts. Too much more of this and the whole thing breaks down. It all comes down to the people, and we may find that we simply cannot govern ourselves. I hope I never see the day, but the signs are there.

[Tank]

The social contract or agreement is in danger of breaking down in the USA. Even to the point that some woman from my home state feels like she can write a letter and call a federal judge in another state, call her a slave nigger, and threaten to kill her. This has existed under the surface forever, but Trump gave everyone permission to voice these negative thoughts. Too much more of this and the whole thing breaks down. It all comes down to the people, and we may find that we simply cannot govern ourselves. I hope I never see the day, but the signs are there.

A interesting insight.

[Asmodean]

Are not those thoughts better voiced? Otherwise, how can they ever be addressed?

Of course, on the flipside, the choices there may be war or slow decay, which... Yeah. It is interesting, were it not for people's lives.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

It just keeps happening. Some Nazi wannabe who hates blacks walks into a Dollar Store and kills three people whom he did not know. With an AR-15 and body armor. WTF. I just do not understand that kind of hatred. And driving back to Texas (hell in August) from Maine (paradise in August) I pass some idiot selling Trump banners and, of all things, Confederate flags. No USA flags - just big Confederate flags. The idiot probably does not understand that the Confederate states tried to destroy the USA. Some idiots down here even fly Confederate flags right next to USA flags, and then get mad when they see a Mexican flag. If we could find a way to export stupid in this state we could all be billionaires. We keep growing bumper crops of it.

[Asmodean]

Over here, we have some laws and conventions governing the flying of flags. They are for things like the sizes of flags and flagging times and such like, but there may also be some that dictate the order of flags - for example that if you fly another nation's flag, it has to be in conjunction the national flag.

[EDIT]The Asmo from the future here. Got myself fascinated and read up on it. The local provisions are that when it is in the interests of international politeness, another nation's flag may be raised in public. So technically, I think I could raise the Swedish colours exclusively, if trying to be polite to them Swedes.[/end EDIT]

...But I'm spiraling off the point. I think that while you should be free to fly whatever symbols you want, exclusively flying one nation's flag on the territory of another is at best disrespectful. In this case, I'd apply that equally to the flag of Mexico, India or the Confederacy. Embassies and other national or trade representatives of those nations excluded. (where applicable, which in the case of the confederacy, it really is not)

Now, if you properly combine those flags with them stars and stripes... Then no problem. Get another flag pole and there you go.

Now, selling such symbols... Well... Sell whatever the hell you want, within reason. I have no more problem with a guy peddling MAGA hats and confederate flags than I would with someone peddling free hugs from Joe Biden and Argentina Forever pins. If that's your stock - then that's your stock.