The delusions of Western "natural rights".

Turns out "natural rights" aren't natural at all; they must be defined in law - beginning with the one undeniable fact: we are all born free, though certainly NOT "created equal".

[That explains the difference between the US founding fathers who considered "inalienable rights" to be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; whereas John Locke, writing at the time of the Glorious Revolution in 1688 in England, proposed rights to "life, liberty and property". Obviously the last is not an "inalienable right" because not everyone can afford to buy property.]

So if "rights" (other than liberty which is available to all; the "right to life" is moot) are created by men, ie "rights" are not natural or inherent, what of "human nature" which IS inherent, ie, not created by men but by evolution?

We can say human nature presents a spectrum of traits, from 'evil' to 'good', eg, from greed and cruelty, to altruism and kindness.

So we have to separate created rights from evolved natural traits (good or evil).

This is why an argument for international law which overrides national sovereignty can be made, on behalf of peace and security among nations.

 

How do you enforce your international law? Through war, economic or military.

Given the composition of most global and regional bodies these days, you'd have to be completely barking mad to posit the solution as more central control.

I am firmly opposed to the centralisation of power in increasingly global governments and corporations. Local autonomy has value in and of itself.

I agree about natural rights, largely because you can't logically get from how the world is to how it ought to be. Normative claims cannot be proven with descriptive facts.

That doesn't discredit rights, it just means there is no universal basis for them. They are contingent on values (ie: IF you value winning the race, you ought to run fast)

 

The goal is to outlaw war as a means of dispute settlement between nations.

Note: in the age of MAD: the Ukraine war is really a proxy war between the vanquished - but still alive in former communist Russia - USSR, and an obsolete NATO backed by the US. Literally mad, destroying the lives of innocent civilians in Ukraine (and lives of poor people around the world because of the economic fallout); Ukraine is not allowed to attack Russia, because that means Russia could attack NATO with nukes).

Who is "completely barking mad".....you who thinks it's still acceptable to wage war in the age of MAD, or me who wants international law banning war as a means of dispute settlement between nations?

Confusion of terms: national governments can't become "increasingly global", they can agree to submit to international law in the matter of relations BETWEEN nations.

Good, we agree on that much.

And if you hate the insanity of war, you will outlaw war.....

 

Rights and expectations of behaviour between one and another are IMO ways humans have devised by experience to both avoid death and develop our Civilisation.
We can ignore them but underneath all our differences, the vast majority of humans want to do those two things so we consent to respect those fundamental principles.
Anarchy is not a good look.

 

We still celebrate the Glorious Revolution every year, I would argue the right to property IS an inalienable right in that the government can't arbitrarily take it off you.

 

Inalienable (inherent) rights are those which apply to all humans. Not everyone can afford to buy property, which is why the public sector (government) should own a stock of housing, to ensure everyone can be safely housed.

 

Indeed anarchy is not a good look: Russia is destroying life and property in Ukraine owing to a dispute with NATO going back to the collapse of the USSR.

....and respect for "rights and expectations" is not equally held; hence the US Capitol riots, and similar riots in Brasilia when Lula narrowly defeated Bolsonaro.

 

It's actually really simple the idea of a right is something which you believe you have to the point you're willing to spill blood for it.

As an example if the government decided that I was going to start putting people to death for believing certain religious beliefs the ability for the government to do that is limited by the people allowing them to do that. It really doesn't matter what guns or what mechanisms you have you can't use those to suppress people that will not be suppressed.

 

Some definitions are helpful, for a sensible debate, eg: (quick google):

Documents asserting individual rights, such the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689), the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of today's human rights documents.

.....such as those outlined in the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Note: while universal rights are assertions, not inherent in nature, they are certainly not an individual's opinion of a claim which he is willing to shed blood for. That's mere anarchy.

.....then the govt. should lock you up immediately, if it had reasonable suspicion you were going to do that ....but let's read on:

You have it back to front and upside down. Government makes laws to avoid anarchy, "in order to promote the common welfare", though some laws might in fact not agree with certain values in society, in which case the law should be changed.

Correct - in the long term. Slavery took a long to time to overthrow, and the desire for an economy which works for all is yet to be satisfied.

 

We already have those international laws. They are meaningless.

 

The meaning comes from the will of the people to respect them.
The vast number of people do. And the fact that there are international courts which can ajudicate and imprison those who break them means they are not meaningless.
Only last month a woman of nearly 100 was found guilty of crimes against humanity in Germany.

 

I guess that is an example of why the U.S. doesn't subscribes to the international court rendering things here meaningless as I said.

 

I would think it obvious that we're having enough trouble keeping order in our own house, and it would be foolish to think we could adopt any form of world order that would work.

Nations, societies- are works in progress. Progress is generally considered to be improvement, not just change. If your nation is not getting better- it's getting worse or left behind.

Then, you must consider what drives positive progress. It's not incivility, not hostility, not the abandonment of moral principles, not the condemnation of those who out-perform and make an economy thrive- it's just the opposite of all those things.

Most people think of themselves, and they should. But they should remember that they are part of their own society, like passengers all on the same ship, with a similar destination- a better place to live. Were it an actual ship, it would make total sense to throw those who would sabotage that ship or corrupt it's purpose- overboard. They are toxic, not only do they do damage, but they infect others with their hostile mindsets.

Everything in nature works in that way. If you refuse to cut it, to stand on your own- you are out. Every species in nature out performs humans in dozens of ways, thriving for millions of years- without politics, governments, religions, etc. Until we came along and decided we were so smart we could ignore proven function and make up our own rules..... and despite all the failures, we continue to make matters worse. Doubling down, doing more of the same thing, thinking results will be different next time.

I think we need to fix ourselves before we decide we can fix anything else- and that is a challenge of immense proportion, that we are totally unprepared to face at this point in time.
The technology we invent grows exponentially. However, the technologies of our thinking- the wisdom, the intelligence (or ability to use it) and the the basic capacities of our people- are in decline, and that is documentable in dozens of ways. We are the only species in the history of the earth that is likely to be solely responsible for it's own extinction.

Let's fix us before we claim we can fix everybody. And that starts with- you and I getting our own ducks in line....

 

Dude property isn't just land.

 

Dude property isn't just land. Sorry but evidence that government is by nature altruistic and therefore should run everything is so laughably absurd as to be an oxymoron.

 

Oh and what is the enforcement mechanism? What do you do about a whole damn country that says hell with you law against war. Note that has been tried before or perhaps you aren't old enough to remember the league of nations.

 

Make war illegal. Brilliant. Simple. Effective.

 

I'm not interested in condescending trash.

we're not talking about individuals strange how you have to make that straw man fallacy.

As a society if we do not tolerate something the government cannot make it a law or if they do they do so at their own peril. That is how it supposed to be. Society has the power not government.

if I have $500,000 people that agree with me those remaining 499,000 should beat the daylights out of the government until they acquiesce.

And that's exactly what happens

you are placing government in a position that it doesn't occupy. Governments don't care at all about anarchy. They care about power and control. They are limited by not having as much control as they would like.

That's not anarchy that's functional society that's how it's worked for millennia that it's not

government cannot do that anytime it's ever attempted to do that it always results in genocide or salmon which is just another form of genocide.

That is not the government's place and it should never be permitted to serve that role

no the government better change it or they will lose their lives.

As long as material is finite no economy will ever exist that works for all. We have to settle for one that works for most

 

You are contradicting yourself. Liberty isn't available to all. It often has to be fought for in order to secure it. "Inalienable" doesn't mean that no one can physically take it away. It means that no one is JUSTIFIED in taking it away.

 

Values.....

The US has enshrined the "right" to carry, and has the highest number of gun deaths in any 1st world country.

 

Wrong; unlike property, liberty is available to all at birth (since we are all born free) until it is taken away by someone, hence liberty is a "right" which doesn't have to be defined in law.

...because someone wants to take it away.

Correct.

That depends on WHY the liberty is being taken away.......

 

"Documents asserting individual rights, such the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689), the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of today's human rights documents." ...are not "condescending trash".

You said "a right is something which you believe you have to the point you're willing to spill blood for it".

Libertarian nonsense. Government makes law to avoid anarchy and "promote the common welfare". If society objects to a law, it will change that law, via government.

?? half the population should attack the other half, until the government acquiesces?

To the wishes of which half?

That's called destructive hyper-partisanship.

So to avoid anarchy, ALL must submit to the law (until the majority - or by consensus - change it).

Addressed and refuted above. Your blind, self-interested individual "freedom" ideology is delusional because it MUST lead to anarchy, given we are naturally competitive by nature.

Well, endless wars "worked for millennia", enabling survival according to 'might is right'; but the age of MAD is upon us....so a new system is required.

You mean the politicians representing the people?

Scarcity of essentials is now obsolete, in the age of AI and IT assisted production.

 

That's what the Australian High Court judge Herbet Evatt had in mind in 1946, when he resisted the demand for the power of veto by the US and USSR, in the proposed UN Security Council.

50 delegates from smaller countries present at the San Francisco conference supported Evatt, but the delegated bastards from the US and USSR said "no veto, no UN".

 

At his stage, at the beginning of the development of international law, mainly its moral impact.

Keep developing international law, which is a long-term process.

The League never had more than half the world nations as members. The UN is a step forward on the path to achieving effective international law.

The madness of a UN 'Security' Council member deciding to go to war is staring us all in the face, presumably we will learn.

 

Who said it was?

Certainly government should maintain a stock of public housing the ensure safe housing for those who can't afford housing.

Government makes laws - good or bad.

But "promotion of the common welfare" by government does require some altruism from the citizens, so government can enact the necessary laws to achieve that goal.