The Glade 4.0

You can't. It's a made up concept. It's a *good* made up concept, but it's still made up. We shouldn't try to make it something magical, which is how many people in the thread seem to categorize it.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The difference between individual belief in, or government founded upon, principles of fluid rights or inherent rights is the critical distinction. Practical application is actually the most irrelevant part when it comes to larger policy, cultural, and theoretical issues.

It guides "right and wrong" when it comes to larger policy. Let us use healthcare as an example, and the "individual mandate."

Under a fluid rights foundation, one can easily justify a compulsion from government to purchase "insurance" to provide healthcare, because 1) failure to do so can theoretically undermine other individuals' ability to acquire care, and 2) because you have been "determined" to not have the right to decide whether to acquire the product.

Under an inherent rights foundation, one cannot justify said compulsion, because the right to determine for oneself whether to acquire a product is protected under the core rights.



As to physician shortage in the UK, here's just a side comment in one article I found:

http://www.annals.org/content/141/9/705.full


Primary care is actually fine in the UK. It is secondary, tertiary, and quaternary care that sees the problems, based on the literature I've read.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

No one has been able to show that any moral system is objectively the correct one. The only reason it's useful to know that rights haven't been shown to objectively exist is that when someone insists that you debate only based on the assumption that they do, you can tell them you don't want to without rejecting observeable fact.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes it can. Hell, you an easily surrender your DNA; how the hell do you think DNA samples are taken?

Besides, all you're doing is nitpicking semantics. Like I said, it functionally doesn't matter if rights are inherent or not. When you restrict the rights of a criminal by force, under an assumption of inherent rights, it is not immoral to do so because he has chosen to do so to someone else first.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

How is anyone calling them magical? No one is claiming rights have any actual power, even if they ARE inherent.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You know I think my work here is done. So many people are so good at making the points on philosophy and practice that I was making two years ago that I find I really don't need to comment much anymore.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Well, your first sentiment is certainly true. Which is why I give Natural Rights philosophy the same amount of weight I give any sort of religious doctrine. It has it's value, but it's not objective truth.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Neither is any other moral system, including yours. You're pointing out a common problem with any moral argument. That doesn't mean you can't argue in favor of one over the other on the practical merits, but none of hem has been shown to be distinctly correct.

The reason you don't give natural rights or religion any weight is that you don't like them. It has nothing to do with objective proof; there's no objective proof for any position. It's fine if you don't like them, but just admit it. I'm not keen on "natural rights" myself; like most other moral systems they tend to advocate consistency with the moral system for its own sake.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Have I ever claimed that my moral system was objective truth?



Stop trying to apply motivations to me that do not exist. I'm fine with religion. I'm fine with people who believe in natural rights. But don't claim that either of them are objectively true, for all people. It's just not the case. I may not agree with particular religious doctrines. I may think some of them are downright repugnant. But that doesn't mean I hate or even don't like religion. It brings great joy and fulfillment to all sorts of people.

When will people realize that being critical about the particulars of something is not the same thing as being against that thing?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

You objected to the idea of natural rights and religion because they weren't objective truth. If you're giving them no weight because of that, but you acknowledge your own system has the same issue, then why give your own system any weight?

I think you just simply didn't think it all the way through before posting.



Clerly, you're not. In any case, unless you're admitting to a purposeful double standard, it's pretty clear you're objecting to religion and natural rights because you don't like them. That's not some sort of insult, nor is it attributing anything to you that doesn't automatically follow from what you said. Would you rather I attribute stupidity to you? That's your alternative.



So what?



Really not relevant, nor true. You either dislike religion (which your posting history makes abundantly clear anyhow) or you are objecting that it's not objectively proven while giving your own ideas of morality a free pass in the same regard.



People realize that just fine. I don't know why you're getting all in a tizzy because I'm pointing out that you can't cricticize just the systems you want to based on lack of objective proof. You can still argue the practial merits.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

When it can't be taken from you.

You have a right to your opinion, for instance.

Any "right" that involves the physical world is granted only by some sort of physical superiority.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

No, I simply choose, for myself, to not take them on faith. They are not objective truth, that much is clear, and can be easily shown. However, they are definitely subjectively true for many people. I am simply not one of them.



My moral system is mine. It's the standard that I hold myself to. But I would never claim my moral system was objectively true for you.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that my conclusions about the divine, or Natural Rights, are my moral system. They aren't.





Only in your mind.



Look, if you are going to keep inventing my thoughts, there's no reason to keep That's not some sort of insult, nor is it attributing anything to you that doesn't automatically follow from what you said. Would you rather I attribute stupidity to you? That's your alternative.



So what?



In your mind, which equates criticism with dislike. This whole time, we have not been talking about my moral system. We have been talking about objective issues, like how rights are created. Some have asserted that their subjective beliefs are objectively true. I am not one of them. I observe the construction of rights. I observe that they do not exist outside of our society, and I draw a rational conclusion based on that observation. Those that insist that rights are an inherent (And thus objectively true for all people) part of being a human being have the burden of proof. They must prove, objectively, that the Creator exists. Or, they must show some sort of biological origin for these rights they say we all have, but can relinquish by crossing someone's lawn.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Montegue:

Since you seem to have latched on to the epistemological notion of objectivity, in two threads now, why don't you explain it to the rest of us. "Objectivity" obviously means something different to you than it does the rest of us.

_________________

You regularly claim that it is immoral for people to do all kinds of things.



Sicne you mashed my quote and yours together, no idea what you're saying here. All I'm pointing out is your lack of consistency. Like I said, it seems you didn't think this through.



Except that no one has claimed rights are objectively observeably true. Where did anyone say this?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

But that seems to be more a desirable implementation outcome, rather than an intrinsic property of the rights themselves - now, I dont disagree; I think one of the primary 'goods' in a society is when major power bases compete, non destructively, amongst themselves; governmental, societal, corporate, religious, etc; such that none gain overwhelming dominance of the populous; preventing "them" redefining rights arbitrarily provides a comprehensible and consistent framework ("order") for folks to exist and hope to prosper in.

But that doesnt get to the nub of what Im asking; what makes a right 'inherent' rather than 'determined' - as our esteemed Camel pointed out, we can have determined rights that are very hard to change by errecting systemic obstacles to doing so (super majority requirements in majority number of states, etc), and actually not doing that and simple stating the rights are immutable doesnt stop them being practically infringed to the point that they might as well not exist, and eventually may even be forgotten, over a long enough period.

So what does it mean to say its inherent? Just that its a right the advocate deems non negotiable? Or something intrinsic to the right and its nature itself?

And I endeavor to say "And I think that's immoral" or "As far as I'm concerned". That doesn't always happen. I am perfectly willing to give a vigorous defense for my moral outlook, but I do not ever intend to claim it is objectively true for all people.





Throughout this thread, and the history of the board. At least, they have claimed it is objectively true for all people. And if that's not what they believe, they should make that clearer.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Cool. So in the future when you claim things are immoral, we can just disregard that as just your personal feeling, right?



Actually, I think it's been made abundantly clear. Elmo has made it clear on several occasions that he starts from an assumption that a person owns themself. Where in this thread did anyone claim rights objectively exist?

A few people have appealed to consequences, but that's not the same thing.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ok, some unnamed, unproven "Creator" grants man these...rights...which are inherent and inalienable, unless we do something like trespass on someone's property or commit some sort of crime. This "Creator" grants these special qualities exclusively to human beings.

That doesn't sound magical to you?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Not really, no. The rights still don't actually do anything. It doesn't matter if you assume they come from a creator, or if you just assume they exist of their own accord. It works the same way.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Each to their own. To me, it definitely sounds like magical stuff to me.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

That's pretty silly.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's because he is stawmanning like a drowning man thrashes in the water. We even discussed, in this very thread, that human notions about rights come from their basic recognition of their mind as their own and no one else's, which leads to the recognition of property. At this point he's flatly denying the human condition.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

You know, just because you want to categorize me according to philosophical categories doesn't mean I have to follow suit. Nor does it mean I have to lay out a correct academic accounting of these philosophies in order for my points to be relevant.

Objective - out of the self.

Subjective - within the self.


For example. Objective - the moon is not made of Swiss cheese. This is verifiable through observation and objective evidence.

Subjective - I believe the moon is made of swiss cheese. This is not verifiable through either observation or objective evidence. It is something a person would take on faith, or would believe in spite of available evidence.

Objective - Rights are constructs of man.

Subjective - I believe that man was endowed with rights by a Creator being.

If the subjective example were to be changed to "Man was endowed with rights by a Creator being", it would be a false statement, unless the speaker were able to provide actual proof or evidence beyond their own subjective belief.

Now, if you want to have a useless conversation about weather or not what we perceive is real, you will need to have that with someone else, preferably while stoned and staring up at the aforementioned wheel of Swiss cheese. I am actually typing on a keyboard. My cat is actually rubbing my leg. These things are not "maybe" happening. They are not "maybe" real. They are real. They are happening. Objectively.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Except that you don't actually know if either of those is true or not. There is nothing to objectively indicate that rights are a construct of man or not. In fact, like I pointed out, it doesn't even matter if they are or not.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Please refine your pronoun usage, I'm not following you as to which is the more desirable implementation outcome to your mind.



Personal belief of individuals, often codified into national constitutions.

One cannot logically have a mix of both inherent and fluid or "determined" rights. The underlying belief systems do not align.

For example, the US Constitution is, in theory, grounded in inherent rights.



I think the metaphysics of rights, based upon a natural rights stance, gets beyond the scope of an open forum, but the key to the discussion is that if one does believe in inherent rights, they must (if they are consistent) believe that violations of those rights are "wrong." In other words, it sets up a moral groundwork.

On the other hand, were an individual to believe in fluid or "determined" rights, it must logically follow that that individual is "ok" with actions we might currently call "immoral" or "wrong," provided that the determination has been made that certain "rights" are waved. Using a less graphic example than the Jewish Holocaust, let us examine slavery in the United States.

While the US Constitution was set up under the principles of inherent rights, slavery existed in the US, and cultural norms created subjugation of women. A logically consistent believer in natural rights would look back on that time and say that, while the US Constitution certainly provided an extremely "free" and "liberal" society, it violated the rights of a large percentage of the population at the time. This past behavior would therefore have been "wrong" and "immoral," because the rights themselves are inherent.

On the other hand, using the stance of Aizle, Monty, and perhaps some others here, were a logically consistent believer in fluid or "determined" rights to look back on the same period in history, they would say that the US Constitution did nothing "immoral" or "wrong," because it did not violate any rights, as those minority groups were not "determined" to have rights.

It is because of exactly this disparity that those who believe in natural rights have a strong distaste for both extraneous usage of the term "rights" in society, but also for the very idea of fluid rights.



All of this is of course separate from the actual practical enforcement and protection of rights under either viewpoint; I'm speaking simply in the abstract at this point.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine