Human rights violations

Page 2 of 2 [ 31 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

30 May 2012, 11:28 pm

Burzum wrote:

Putting the government in charge of a resource is socialist. Do you have a better term for it?

Putting a government in charge of a resource does not necessary make it socialist.

There have been quite a few nationalistic governments who have put themselves in charge of resources and have been anything but socialists, quite the opposite in fact.

_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html

Last edited by Kjas on 31 May 2012, 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

30 May 2012, 11:42 pm

Lord_Gareth wrote:

In all honesty, with no sarcasm whatsoever: I'd love to see a thread started on this if you feel you can explain what you're talking about in detail. I can envision a few things that might work out, but I'm very, very far from an economist, so it'd be nice to get some data from the other side of the argument.

Read Hayek's The Use Of Knowledge In Society, particularly chapters V and VI.

Or ask TM, he's a smart cookie. I don't have the time for such a task at this time, sorry.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 May 2012, 1:36 am

Burzum wrote:

Putting the government in charge of a resource is socialist. Do you have a better term for it?

Putting the government in charge of anything is like flushing it down the toilet.

The only thing a government can do well is exert force on people or the threat of force. Government IS force.

ruveyn

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

31 May 2012, 1:58 pm

JWC wrote:

Here is an exhaustive definition of the term "rights". No where in there do I see a definition even remotely similar to yours.

Quote:

right [rahyt] Show IPA adjective, right·er, right·est, noun, adverb, verb
adjective
1.
in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
2.
in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.
3.
correct in judgment, opinion, or action.
4.
fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time.
5.
most convenient, desirable, or favorable: Omaha is the right location for a meatpacking firm.
6.
of, pertaining to, or located on or near the side of a person or thing that is turned toward the east when the subject is facing north ( opposed to left).
7.
in a satisfactory state; in good order: to put things right.
8.
sound, sane, or normal: to be in one's right mind; She wasn't right in her head when she made the will.
9.
in good health or spirits: I don't feel quite right today.
10.
principal, front, or upper: the right side of cloth.
11.
( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to political conservatives or their beliefs.
12.
socially approved, desirable, or influential: to go to the right schools and know the right people.
13.
formed by or with reference to a perpendicular: a right angle.
14.
straight: a right line.
15.
Geometry . having an axis perpendicular to the base: a right cone.
16.
Mathematics . pertaining to an element of a set that has a given property when placed on the right of an element or set of elements of the given set: a right identity.
17.
genuine; authentic: the right owner.

When you sign a contract, you have a right to receive the benefits for which you have contracted--that is provided by the other contracting parties.

Umm, you do know the difference between a noun and an adjective, don't you? You haven't presented an exhaustive definition of the word, "right," because every single one of those senses of the word is an adjectival sense. But when we speak of rights, we are using the word in one of its nominal senses.

The Oxford English Dictionary wrote:

right, n.
...
II. Legal, moral, or natural entitlement, and related uses.
...
9.
a. A legal, equitable, or moral title or claim to the possession of property or authority, the enjoyment of privileges or immunities, etc.; (by extension) an entitlement considered to arise through natural justice (whether or not enshrined in legislation) and which is applicable to all members of a particular group.
[cross references and citations omitted]
b. A legal, equitable, or moral entitlement to (also rarely for) something.
[cross references and citations omitted]
...
10.
a. Something that a person may properly claim, or that justly accrues or falls to one; a person's due. Also in fig. context.
[citations omitted]
....
11. With possessive adjective or genitive: a person's (also in extended use, a thing's) entitlement or claim to something, now esp. political or civil privileges or liberties. Now usu. in pl. (freq. in rights of man, rights of woman (also women).

Call me when you've finished law school

_________________
--James

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

31 May 2012, 2:55 pm

Hmm...maybe it would be beneficial to distinguish between a legal right and a moral right. While you may have a legal right to the products of someone else's labor, you have no moral right to them.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 May 2012, 3:21 pm

JWC wrote:

Hmm...maybe it would be beneficial to distinguish between a legal right and a moral right. While you may have a legal right to the products of someone else's labor, you have no moral right to them.

A legal right can be objectively ascertained. Just look in the law book. A moral right is someone's opinion.

ruveyn

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

31 May 2012, 3:31 pm

ruveyn wrote:

JWC wrote:

Hmm...maybe it would be beneficial to distinguish between a legal right and a moral right. While you may have a legal right to the products of someone else's labor, you have no moral right to them.

A legal right can be objectively ascertained. Just look in the law book. A moral right is someone's opinion.

ruveyn

So your claim is that morality is subjective, hence detached from reality?

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

31 May 2012, 3:48 pm

JWC wrote:

So your claim is that morality is subjective, hence detached from reality?

How does the latter flow from the former?

There are plenty of things that are subjective that are perfectly grounded in reality. There is certainly a school of thought that supposes that reality is inherently subjective because we can only understand reality insofar as we can individually perceive it, putting a subjective lens on any attempt to establish a firm, objective reality.

Morality is most assuredly subjective. That which I consider to be moral and that which you consider to be moral are perhaps two very different things. But because of that, I reject the notion of a "moral right."

The use of the term, "a right." implies enforcability--I have a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and I can enforce that right against the State's attempt to interfere with it. I have a right to the quiet enjoyment of my real property, and I can enforce that against my neighbors through the tort of nuisance. I have a right in contract to be paid my salary for the work I perform, whcih I can enforce against my employer.

But the notion of entitlement arising from morality is slippery. I might have a moral right to the sexual fidelity of my partner, but that is unenforcable. Certainly sexual infidelity would give me grounds to seek the legal dissolution of our relationship--but I could not sue him for damages arising from his infidelity, or obtain an injunction to prohibit his infidelity.

_________________
--James

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

31 May 2012, 3:56 pm

visagrunt wrote:

JWC wrote:

So your claim is that morality is subjective, hence detached from reality?

I see no point in continuing this discussion any further. You have made it apparent that you live in a different reality from the one that I live in. Therefore, no consensus is possible.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 May 2012, 5:49 pm

JWC wrote:

So your claim is that morality is subjective, hence detached from reality?

Obviously there is something in the physical world which leads a person to make a moral judgement. But there is nothing in the laws of physics that determines any kind of a moral system at all.

In the abstract I do not think there are any moral facts. Only moral judgments or opinions.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 01 Jun 2012, 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

31 May 2012, 6:02 pm

JWC wrote:

I see no point in continuing this discussion any further. You have made it apparent that you live in a different reality from the one that I live in. Therefore, no consensus is possible.

I live in a reality of law. What is the nature of the reality that you inhabit?

_________________
--James

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

31 May 2012, 6:02 pm

Great link, HDM, this is some really interesting stuff

Amnesty International Report on Canada wrote:

International justice

In October, the government failed to arrest former US President George W. Bush when he travelled to British Columbia, despite clear evidence that he was responsible for crimes under international law, including torture.

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

31 May 2012, 6:28 pm

Vigilans wrote:

Great link, HDM, this is some really interesting stuff

Amnesty International Report on Canada wrote:

Hmm... I wonder if there is something we could charge Harper with? Criminal negligence towards the lives of my generation perhaps?

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

31 May 2012, 11:56 pm

edgewaters wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Because they require labor and capital to produce.

So do highways. Sewer systems. Public libraries. Police cars, and stations. Etc.

If you tried that in the US (especially in California) with food, you would have an abundance of great farmland and still end up with widespread cannibalism. In fact, farmers in the northern and central valleys are going bankrupt and even abandoning their properties due to environmentalists tying up the water supply in red tape.

_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

01 Jun 2012, 12:32 pm

AstroGeek wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Great link, HDM, this is some really interesting stuff

Amnesty International Report on Canada wrote:

Hmm... I wonder if there is something we could charge Harper with? Criminal negligence towards the lives of my generation perhaps?

First I would call the fashion police, because our PM, the face of our nation, looks like a fracking melvin

Page 2 of 2 [ 31 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Jump to:

Human rights violations Post Reply New Topic

Human rights violations