Human Rights

[hibernal_dream]

why would you have the duty not to take a life? if it is not good or bad to take a life then there would be no reason to tell someone what they're supposed to do, it's just bullshit to say 'for no reason at all, you have a duty not to kill' as if you could equally have been fated with the unfortunate 'duty not to eat red m&m's' to which you can only say 'well hey, red m&m's aren't bad, but we're just stuck with this duty, ya know?'

The rule exists simply because we live in a large, advanced society which would fall apart without these kinds of laws to bind our citizens. It's the difference between anarchy and governance. There can be a reason for the law to exist, but there doesn't have to be. I'm not a huge proponent of the natural law view. I agree it would be better to have moral custom rather than positive laws, but in my view it's an impossibility when a group of people becomes too large.

so, freedom 'to say what you want people to say' would be ideal?

Not sure I understand this one. Anyway, that's not what I said.

so words are a disease now? I can infect you with what I say? should we then extinguish religion?

I used the disease example only to demonstrate that rumours and lies about people spread quickly and create divisions in the community. Religion is not defamatory

 

[Seditious]

The rule exists simply because we live in a large, advanced society which would fall apart without these kinds of laws to bind our citizens.

then you have to assume it's good that it doesn't fall apart and thus 'doing things which will make it fall apart is not good' thus killing, as one of those things, is 'not good.'

There can be a reason for the law to exist, but there doesn't have to be

example?

Not sure I understand this one. Anyway, that's not what I said.

an excessively large freedom of speech will disintegrate the concept of society as a community by allowing all sorts of false and offensive slander. The person who spreads gossip and rumors like AIDS doesn't deserve to be considered part of that community.

let me rephrase then.

someone who says what you don't want them to say is a disease--an infection that doesn't deserve to be in the community... so you don't want people to have freedom of speech because they might become a disease, you want them to have freedom to recite any idea you like...

I used the disease example only to demonstrate that rumours and lies about people spread quickly and create divisions in the community. Religion is not defamatory

and it's better to have a silent nation of people with their own opinions dividing them unknowingly, which they're not allowed to express, than freedom of speech, and that division in the community...?

 

[hibernal_dream]

So I can only choose one of your extremes? If you want to group both the expression of a legitimate concern such as the harm a company does to the environment along with a false publication alleging that a famous politician is a pedophile under the heading of "opinions" and legislate accordingly, that's not a society i'd want to live in. It isn't about liking an idea or not, it's about limiting the freedoms sensibly by prohibiting harmful slander.

 

[Seditious]

it's about limiting the freedoms sensibly by prohibiting harmful slander.

so I can't say you have a small penis incase it's not true? what about saying you have a huge penis. that's not really harmful, but it might be no more true.

you can tell me what I'm allowed to think by limiting what people can say to me, and I'm not being harmed? what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty--if we can't 'slander' how do we accuse anyone of anything, surely we're expected to take all things as slander or lies ('you have a big penis' equally may be a lie) until there is some reason to believe it---it's just an idea freely shared from the freedom to think for oneself and act legally.

 

[Blowtus]

one person exercising their freedom can severely impact the freedom of many others. The concept of 'human rights' seems a basic attempt to lay guidelines for the limiting of everyones freedom, in such a way that the 'sum total' of freedom is largest.

 

[Seditious]

one person exercising their freedom can severely impact the freedom of many others. The concept of 'human rights' seems a basic attempt to lay guidelines for the limiting of everyones freedom, in such a way that the 'sum total' of freedom is largest.

I'd reword that slightly to end by saying 'limiting of everyones freedom ...to offer the greatest consistency of freedom between individuals.'

(if one act of freedom acts against the freedom of another, then the sum total is the same, it's only distribution which is being changed---attempting to have a distribution with the least variation so that people wont feel cheated raising the issue articulated by children... 'he gets more than me, it's not fair, I hate you')

 

[Blowtus]

I disagree. Take 5 people, each with a capacity for freedom between 0 and 100. One of those people is equipped to enslave the other 4. Total freedom is going to be less than if the other 4 enslave / subdue the one.

 

[OldScratch]

one person exercising their freedom can severely impact the freedom of many others. The concept of 'human rights' seems a basic attempt to lay guidelines for the limiting of everyones freedom, in such a way that the 'sum total' of freedom is largest.

Sweet mother of Zeus! What a hideously perfect recipe for global mediocrity and tepid, egalitarian utopianism. Indeed, you are essentially correct though -that is an all-too-accurate description of the nakedly contrived ideal behind this "Human Rights" flimflam!
Just think about this diabolically unnatural concept - limit the freedom of those who earn and keep it by might, intellect and will, by artificially manufacturing and universally granting "freedom" to those who cannot or will not procure it for themselves! Thus arbitrary "freedom" can be spread around...like so much manure to fertilize the global uber-equality State! Well...that certainly tosses the social-Darwinism idea out the window.

 

[Seditious]

I disagree. Take 5 people, each with a capacity for freedom between 0 and 100. One of those people is equipped to enslave the other 4. Total freedom is going to be less than if the other 4 enslave / subdue the one.

you suggested some acts (like enslavement) rob the freedom of others, the alternative is robbing the man of his freedom to enslave---there is a 1 to 1 ratio with the act pertaining to freedom.

so if you have 5 people, one person can enslave each of the four, or he can have the freedom to enslave any of the four removed so that each of them can have their freedom to life as free people. Think about it, a jailer hasn't the right to imprison anyone, he only has a 1:1 ratio, he has the freedom to restrict the physical freedom of one person who is deemed a criminal, he isn't given 'freedom to imprision' which he can then use on 1 billion people meaning he gains 1 freedom point rather than the world having 1 billion freedom points and thus the 'sum' being different or some such distorted sum. to say 'you have the freedom to take the freedom of this person, but not that person' means either you've lost a freedom, or someone else has lost a freedom to you, there is no accumulation



edit:

and to anticipate your objection

to get down to details you might say, no, he gets one freedom to own someone, but if he didn't have that freedom, they'd have... the freedom to do as they want, eat what they want, work where they want, die if they want, live where they want, and you could name 100 'freedoms' which look like a sum greater than the linguistic 'one freedom' he (The slave owner) has if he rather than his potential slave is given the freedom.

the 1:1 though does continue, and I think that is blatent in modern society under government. In the scenario above, he would have the freedom to say what they eat/work/etc. rather than them having each one of those freedoms, it isn't one package for him but counted as single things for the mathematics... look at society, you have a freedom to work/eat/fuck/etc. but you dont' have the freedom of not paying tax/of smoking whatever drugs you want, having sex with any aged human you want, etc... you lose individual freedoms to what they gain (The freedom to restrict that one act), so in a sense we are that slave, and clearly it isn't that the government has 1 freedom point for itself, where as if America had no government there would be 300,000 points, which means the total sum of freedom is far greater, no, it's just that a number of the freedoms are on the governments side, giving them to one person, and the next person, one freedom of one act to each person doesn't increase the number, they withheld those freedoms from each individual, so the total sum remains the same, so as I suggested, it's only the distribution which has changed, and a distribution where between individuals there is little variation is what people seem to aim for in our sort of society (none of us have the right to smoke weed or crack, if some of us did, people wouldn't be happy about that, its individuals each having the same rights or lack there of which is strived for, not a gain of a 'sum total' as if you would be pleased at some 'increase in sum total of freedom' if women were allowed to sell drugs but men were not given that freedom.)

 

[Blowtus]

Sweet mother of Zeus! What a hideously perfect recipe for global mediocrity and tepid, egalitarian utopianism. Indeed, you are essentially correct though -that is an all-too-accurate description of the nakedly contrived ideal behind this "Human Rights" flimflam!
Just think about this diabolically unnatural concept - limit the freedom of those who earn and keep it by might, intellect and will, by artificially manufacturing and universally granting "freedom" to those who cannot or will not procure it for themselves! Thus arbitrary "freedom" can be spread around...like so much manure to fertilize the global uber-equality State! Well...that certainly tosses the social-Darwinism idea out the window.

Good take on it, imho. After thinking over that I'd tend to suggest 'human rights' is probably more about determining base levels of freedom for all who do not substantially impose on others. Capitalism (somewhat, or very, vaguely) lets those with might, intellect, will and desire obtain 'more' freedom.

 

[Blowtus]

Seditious - I think perhaps we are looking at the arbitrary value system a little differently I was thinking in terms of a % scale. It's true that you limit everyones 'behaviour potential' to the same extent, but only those who ever wanted to exercise that behaviour actually suffer a substantial loss of freedom because of it, imho. I do not find my relative inability to own a horde of slaves impacts on my freedom to act as I wish at all.

 

[Seditious]

Seditious - I think perhaps we are looking at the arbitrary value system a little differently I was thinking in terms of a % scale.

I know, and I don't think it can be thought of in terms of %,

you suggested, "The concept of 'human rights' seems a basic attempt to lay guidelines for the limiting of everyones freedom, in such a way that the 'sum total' of freedom is largest."

but then to look at percentages, do you think to have human rights, you need to add 1% for your right to fuck children, and 1% for your right to kill, and 1% for your right to speech, etc. (1% symbolizing whatever percentage each individual freedom would be as a division from having 100% of the rights someone can have). So to give someone the right to smoke meth, or the right to kill infants, or whatever, is to increase the sum total of freedom, and I don't think human rights are attempting to make the sum total large at all. It seems to me they're happy to keep our 'percentage' low (telling us we don't have the freedom to all sorts of things) and we accept this restriction best when there is little variation between individuals, rather than being upset someon has a higher percentage than ourselves. and surely human rights can't be increasing the sum total a fraction by giving one man one more right while all others have not got that right, that's explicitly saying 'not all humans can have this' and thus it's not a human right, but it would definitely increase the sum total in the society.

only those who ever wanted to exercise that behaviour actually suffer a substantial loss of freedom because of it, imho. I do not find my relative inability to own a horde of slaves impacts on my freedom to act as I wish at all.

only those who ever wanted to exercise that behaviour notice a substantial loss of freedom because of it.

If you're a male, you're really not going to notice a loss of freedom from women not being allowed to vote, but what of it? does that you don't experience the value of a freedom mean it shouldn't exist for anyone? If I think pursuit of happiness isn't worth jack because I want to serve God and live poverty/self-sacrifice then because I don't suffer a loss of freedom from my not wanting that freedom, does that mean you haven't actually lost a freedom if its decided no one gets that freedom? Somewhere a man wants to fuck children, or own slaves, or kill whales, or nuke north korea, or whatever, he notices that loss of freedom, it may as well be you and whatever freedom you like being restricted. but it's really besides the point anyways whether you care about a loss of a freedom, that freedom is lost is a fact, whether you care about it now or not. and if you think human rights mean getting as high a sum total of freedom as possible, what freedom do you mean? freedom of movement, career, sexuality, speech, etc... there are all the freedoms to consider, it doesn't work to just say 'give more people the one freedom of 'not being enslaved' as if 'all people on earth not being slaves' is the be all end all, as if even had they no right to do anything else they want to do, even speak, then you could still say 'we have the highest possible sum total of freedom' as if that is the only behavioral freedom that exists when we well know to be free from 'slavery' but speech being a crime rather than a freedom is clearly something we might want to add to the sum total. (and if I don't want to talk, is that the point?)

 

[hibernal_dream]

Sweet mother of Zeus! What a hideously perfect recipe for global mediocrity and tepid, egalitarian utopianism. Indeed, you are essentially correct though -that is an all-too-accurate description of the nakedly contrived ideal behind this "Human Rights" flimflam!
Just think about this diabolically unnatural concept - limit the freedom of those who earn and keep it by might, intellect and will, by artificially manufacturing and universally granting "freedom" to those who cannot or will not procure it for themselves! Thus arbitrary "freedom" can be spread around...like so much manure to fertilize the global uber-equality State! Well...that certainly tosses the social-Darwinism idea out the window.

How do you procure freedom, an institution granted by the state by law?

 

[Seditious]

How do you procure freedom, an institution granted by the state by law?

we have freedom just by fact of our existence, without any institution it's not locked away somewhere lost and forgotten. the question (which social contract theory alludes to) is how do governments procure our freedom which they then decide we're allowed to have some of?

 

[OldScratch]

How do you procure freedom, an institution granted by the state by law?

Well, the best way is to cautiously limit and restrict the power of the State and its institutions in the first place. As I noted already, it depends to a large degree on what the definition of "freedom" even is(a topic unto itself I suppose). My original observation was, of course, just a generalisation regarding the impossibly manipulative globalist system we already have in place where "freedom" is(allegedly) a given or "right" granted by no one possessed of legitimate power really, but rather by nebulous UN decree, etc.(most of this stems from post WW2 attempts to universally protect "humanity.")