The delusions of Western "natural rights".

Natural rights are derived from logic. Your idea of "basic fairness" is subjective, and not based on logic but based on your own subjective preferences. What you deem "basically fair" may be different than what I deem to be basically fair. What you cannot objectively argue is that you have the right to harm someone.

 

Money is earned. Only government "extracts" money.

 

No, you just don't get what I mean because I was vague. Like morality, real rights are logical and objective, though this is not the same as saying they're absolute or always easily determined. There's nothing "natural" about it. It's always context-dependent. To avoid being vague again, I'll use an example. Basic healthcare is a right now, but it wasn't in the time the US constitution was written. Why? Healthcare didn't meaningfully contribute to saving lives back in those times, so access to it didn't mean much. And yet, a basic level of health is requisite for any sort of opportunity to be happy and/or productive. Modern healthcare makes a difference. So in the modern context, healthcare is a right.

As for "you cannot objectively argue you have the right to harm someone," that's very true. However, harm must be defined. People these days seem to think they have the right to never be offended. They don't. A trickier issue is "putting people at risk." Most agree drunk driving goes over the line, but proponents of drug prohibition also argue drug use itself puts others at risk.

 

I am, however, speaking of wealth, as money is just a facilitator of the exchange of what people produce. By taxing, government essentially steals/robs from those who produce.

 

The problem with giving people stuff, is they will eventually become lazy and non-productive.. There are plenty of examples of that all across this country..

 

And once the handout equals the compensation of working, the productive will opt out and into a life of charity..

 

The problem is that you use the term "natural" as in "to be found in the environment", where as "natural" in "natural rights" means stemming from human nature. No one wants to be killed without their permission (and very few would give it), so no one can claim the right to kill others as if their desire to do so is superior to the desire to be killed.

Perhaps a "civil right" in that the government claims the right to harm people in order to obtain the resources necessary to provide healthcare to those who don't wish to pay for it. Otherwise, I fail to see how it is a right and it's certainly not natural either in the environment or the context of human nature.

So you would argue that your right to be happy and productive means that you can aggress against other people in order to take from the resources that you feel necessary to provide for your happiness and productivity. What about their rights not to be harmed or have their things taken?
What you call a "right" is a subjective value and whether or not many people share it, it's still subjective. Logically, this means that you believe that your subjective values and morals justify aggression against people in order to force them to conform to those morals and values.

Have you heard of a tautology? "Rights come from wants and needs. Healthcare is wanted and need, therefore it is a right." It's begs the question: why do rights come from wants and needs?

Oh? Who gets to define for me whether or not I have been harmed? How do I gain the right to define it for you?

Then we look at whether your "right" to not be offended conflicts with other rights. What is required in order to avoid offense? You can forcibly shut people up, or you can simply avoid people. The latter means harming peaceful people, which violates their rights. So your right to not be offended would conflict with the right to secure one's property and person from harm. These are not difficult things to figure out logically and objectively. It's when emotions get in the way such as "I don't want to be offended, so you must be punished for offending me" or "I want healthcare, so you must be forced to provide it for me" and government caters to those emotions that we have a real problem.

 

The first step, which I have made a practice of, is to limit one's productivity to that which is least taxed and still provides a measure of living that one finds comfortable. I can earn $300k per year in software engineering. I have the skills and ability and have had job offers. Instead, I run a business and take home a much smaller salary in order to reduce my taxable income. It means giving up some premiums, but I do just fine and I get a lot more time for myself. Why should spend my time working on behalf of those who think their healthcare is a "right"?

 

Doesn't seem like a meaningful definition. "stemming from human nature" would imply the right to kill people outside of your tribe, frankly. And that's not the case logically.

Well yes I reject the notion of natural rights so I don't care at all about your last sentence. You seem to take issue with healthcare as a right because it requires the services of others, but that's not a good criterion for rejecting it. A good analogy to healthcare is the context of criminal courts; people have a right to an attorney if accused even if they can't afford it. So the fact that others are required doesn't determine whether somebody has a right to it. Nor does it violate the rights of the people providing that service - only that steps need to be taken given these contexts to ensure people have access to doctors and attorneys.

No, not aggression, but in terms of making sure the services are available to protect these rights, that's what a government is for. And the doctors/nurses/lawyers ought to be fairly compensated, but if unable or unwilling to do the job, others should be sought.

I don't know where you're getting the aggression thing from. Doctors in countries with socialized medicine are not slaves.

It's a fact that medicine saves lives these days. It's a fact that you cannot exercise most rights without your life. And so without fair access to this, you are preventing people from enjoying their rights.

That's not the reasoning. It's derived from a right you agree with - the right to live.

Huh? All I implied was that was the more difficult part for discussion (must be defined). You seem to be acting confrontational for its own sake.

I think you misunderstood. I asserted there IS NO RIGHT to never be offended. Definitely not.

Healthcare is about life and death. People getting offended is about their own emotional problems. These issues are not similar at all. Again, in case it's still unclear, being free from offensive speech is NOT a right.

 

Er..basic necessities: safe housing, good food and essential utilities aren't "stuff"; they are basics which allow people to develop their creativity and become productive.

 

So your issue is taxation.

Indeed the current monetary orthodoxy pits taxpayers against taxpayers (who ALL desire access to basic necessities), as you are demonstrating in your remarks.

Professor Steve Keen outlines the problems with the current monetary orthodoxy:

(link)

Using accounting to prove the core propositions of MMT and Endogenous Money (substack.com)

"Frankly, none of this should be controversial: it is, as shown in this post, simply a matter of accounting. The controversy comes from mainstream "Neoclassical" economists—aided and abetted by Austrian economists, gold bugs, and the like—not understanding how the monetary system works, because they don't understand double entry bookkeeping—let alone. think in terms of it when modelling the economy.

Instead, thanks to their ignorance, we have endless "crises" over debt ceilings, too much private credit money creation thanks to too small government deficits, austerity crippling economies as it results in governments not investing sufficiently in infrastructure and welfare, and "puzzling" low growth rates for economies that thought that austerity would unleash private sector creativity, when in fact it hampered it by reducing the growth of the money supply."

 

We are just spoiled by the nuclear age. Pre nuclear wars were bloody and costly in lives. Now that nukes exist, wars are kept small but become stalemated because they have to be.
Do you think Putin would continue with punishing the civilian population if Ukraine had nukes?

 

Education: the transfer of knowledge from teacher to student, is a facilitator of wealth creation.

Health spending, public infrastructure: ditto.

 

Thankfully, the Founders didn't share your opinion on Natural Rights.

This is somewhat difficult for me to articulate, but I would argue that our inherent and inalienable Natural Rights are derived from our very existence as individual human beings. Possessing life, our right to that life is self-evident, as well as the rights that emanate from it - the rights to self-preservation, self-defense, self-proprietorship, etc.

As for rights being derived from logic - and this also is in response to the similar comment in Post #76 by @BleedingHeadKen - I think it would be more accurate to say that it is our faculty of Reason - another aspect of our Nature - that enables to determine what our Natural Rights are through the analysis of our Nature. This faculty also enables us to formulate the positive laws that help us to secure those Rights, which makes it possible for us as individuals and our society to reach the things you mentioned.

 

No, he wouldn't have invaded in the first place.

Interestingly the US and China are both concerned to establish "guardrails" in their current competition for global hegemony; a nuclear war between China and the US is not possible.

So the winner of the economic contest will claim the prize of 'global leadership', though a world which respects the principles of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights won't need to be subject to leadership by one nation acting as a "global policeman" (as the US is, currently)

 

Your argument, is not one. You touch upon various ideas and then, without even having well connected those, you suddenly leap to your thesis, about international law, which
comes out of left field.

Let me briefly retrace your steps:
1) Rights are "created" by men. That is, other than life itself, nothing can be taken for granted; any right that we have, is because a human society has communally decided to consider all its members as being entitled to it, at a minimum.

2) What is inherent, is human nature; there is, however, a fairly wide range of ways, that basic nature may manifest, depending on personal character traits. Most consider these-- though you do not note it-- to be a combination of environmental, as well as hereditary, factors. Even in this, it would be overly presumptive, to consider the proportions of that mix, to be consistent, between different people; that is, certain types of natures are harder to alter, while others take more readily, to modification.

So, the OP even did not explicate this idea nearly well enough, for clarity; you seem to just equate different peoples' character traits, personalities, moral or amoral codes of conduct, and dispositions, all with "human nature." Your point, then, could have been summed up as, "there's all kinds of people."

3) Then comes your first use of supposed logic, in saying that "So we have to separate created rights from evolved natural traits (good or evil)." That sentence could be read in different ways, but you do not elaborate. Is the only thing you are saying, is that one must distinguish between rights, and traits? It is not clear what is intended, by your inclusion of the descriptor, "natural." Would you be kind enough to give examples of the types of "evolved" traits, which would not be considered, in your argument, to be natural?

You follow that previous statement (with no cohesive concept, yet distinct), with, "This is why an argument for international law which overrides national sovereignty can be made, on behalf of peace and security among nations." What is that reason, which validates an argument for international law? Because we all do not naturally evolve, individually, to similarly appreciate, what are the group's consensus opinions, of inherent human rights? Why would that be an international issue, as opposed to a national, or sometimes an even more local one? When it is an international issue, humans negotiate agreements, between nations.

Perhaps you mean: because, among the human population, there is not uniform agreement on "the rules," which should apply, for our all people, to our entire species? If so, what even makes you believe-- if, as you point out, there is a broad spectrum of "traits"-- that we are capable, internationally, of coming to unanimous consent on this? Or, for that matter, that the entire world would accept your argument, as to why international law was warranted?

What you mean by that last term, is also not clear. There already is such a thing, as international law. It does not, of course, cover everything-- only certain things, upon which there is uniform agreement. I'd gotten the impression, though, that you had been talking about something akin to a one, world government. If so, it is patently clear that humans have various different impulses, or traits, including a tendency towards nationalism, which would make your suggestion unpalatable, I would posit, to a majority of people-- not to mention, to a unanimity, of national, world leaders.

 

..difficult to articulate, because your understanding of 'natural rights' is flawed.

Life isn't a "right", life exists by reason of being born; and as for liberty, we are all born free, until someone takes that freedom away.

As for your postulated "rights" that emanate from the so called 'right' to life, they are all patently infused by the individual's own self-interest, and therefore cannot be 'rights' belonging to all humans by virtue of 'human nature' (....nature which display a spectrum of behaviours from good to evil).


1. Self-preservation is not a 'right', it is an instinct.

2. Self-defense derives from that instinct ....

3. Self-proprietorship derives from capacity for reason, infused by ego, though not necessarily conscience. (Competition between individuals needs a referee...)

Addressed above: you are both ignoring that "aspect of our nature", ie our nature which - inter alia - is competitive and self-interested, to the point of violence and destructive of the lives of others.

Certainly not infused by an abstract notion of 'reason' or 'reason-ableness', but by subjective 'reason' infused by the ego (and id).

 

All assistance in developing the argument gratefully accepted....

So far, so good.

Again, so far so good, except I would say the "wide range of ways" - or various 'traits' of human nature - from good to evil - apply to all of us: we all have an ego and an id. Certainly the psychopath will be less amenable to 're-education' or behaviour modification.

Yes, though as you can see above, I am now drawing attention the fact we all have an ego and an id, and therefore are all subject to the vicissitudes of human nature.

I should have highlighted that in the OP.

No, not the only thing. To elaborate:

Human nature evolved; and because we (as distinct from animals) now possess the (evolved) cortex brain, humans are endowed with the capacity for 'conscience' and 'reason' - both subjective (self-interested) reasoning (with the possibility of evil), and objective (abstract) reason-ableness.

I hope you can now see how traits are natural (in the sense of evolved, as outlined above); but not in the sense of all traits (from good to evil) being possessed by everyone at the same time or in the same degree.

Whereas the concept of 'rights' supposes a 'good' which is claimed/desired by all, all the time.

Basically: "for all to be free, all must submit to rule of law" Cicero).

Note: rule of law, whether at the local, national, or (yet to be realized) international sphere of governance.

Obviously, "freedom" for Ukrainians (and Russian soldiers) is moot, while they are dying in another insane war.

We have discovered there are no inherent "rights" in nature; "rights" are the inventions of men.

Humans negotiate, and when that fails, they go to war...

The UNUDHR aspires to benefit all peoples.

In 1946, with the much of the world in ruins and millions dead, and that cloud over Hiroshima seared into their brains, delegates at the San Francisco meeting tp create the UN dead, voted in the majority to keep the veto from the US and USSR...

But 'might is right' prevailed.

in any case, the majority thought International law was and is warranted.

 

They didn't "extract the resources from individuals"; government enabled non-anarchic production and distribution of the nation's resources.

 

Rights have to have an enforcing mechanism for them to exist.
If it's not laws or similar and an entity to oversee those laws and rights, then they don't exist.

Then it will come down to might makes right.

 

Ever not pay taxes on your property?
If you did, you found out you don't actually own your own property. You rent it from the gov't. And if you don't pay that rent, they take it.

 

Except 'rights' don't exist in nature, men invented them.

What does exist is human nature: the good, the bad and the ugly....

Yet they are inventions of men. And the DOI falls over at the very start:
"all are created equal"...obvious nonsense, we can only say: all are born free (outside of slavery)

Imbecile and genius are not created equal, men have decided they are "equal before the law", law without which, 'rights' are nonexistent.



Property and the acquisition of property come in many forms, and if you've read Locke you would already know this.

Furthermore, both Locke and the Founding Fathers he influenced considered the right to private property ownership a right. However, while the right to private property ownership may be inalienable, you do have the right to alienate your property.



First of all, rights are not created by men - positive laws and privileges are created by men - and as is the case with rights, human nature is not created by men at all.



Since you're the one confusing the two, by all means separate away!



The entire premise of your argument:



FYI, sovereignty is derived from the individual and association of individuals in every nation. It is not derived from some notion of an international collective or some international body.

By the way, unlike yourself, the men who laid the foundations of Modern international law - Francisco de Vitoria, Hugo Grotius and Alberico Gentili - not only affirmed the existence of natural rights, they based their doctrines of international law on the natural law that is interconnected with natural rights.[/QUOTE]

 

Logic fail.

My understanding of natural rights is fine.

Straw man.

Clearly, you not only misunderstood what I said, you misrepresented what I said.

I said the right to life is a Natural Right that is self-evident, as the Founders pointed out in the Preamble of the DOI.

As for liberty, you obviously don't understand the definition and meaning of the term. I suggest you look it up.

As for your postulated "rights" that emanate from the so called 'right' to life, they are all patently infused by the individual's own self-interest, and therefore cannot be 'rights' belonging to all humans by virtue of 'human nature' (....nature which display a spectrum of behaviours from good to evil).

That would be incorrect on several levels.

First of all these rights are not postulated. Secondly, if a Natural Right is connected to self-interest it doesn't magically negate that right. Third, you seem to believe that individuals can't share interests, which is preposterous.

The right to self-preservation is indeed a right, as are the rights to self-defense and self-proprietorship,

Of course, authoritarians would have us believe otherwise.

And your "point" - if it could be called such a thing - is irrelevant to my own points. Competition and self-interest have nothing to do with the existence of Natural Rights, nor do they negate the existence of those Rights.

Reason is a human faculty, it is not an abstract and/or subjective notion.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

Where does money originate?

 

Individuals have resources. Nations are just labels.