As a human being, do you have any rights just by your existence? (death, Canada)

[markg91359]

I'm going to go in a completely different direction. People want to talk about "natural rights" that are supposedly given by God or founded in nature. The unfortunate thing about natural rights is there is no particular basis for concluding that they exist. When we do speak of them its always in very vague terms. What does life, liberty, and "the pursuit of happiness mean"?

I think its general language that could stand for about anything. The concept of "rights" would vary dramatically between cultures. People in the southern states believed they had a right to have slaves. On the other hand, the slaves believed they were entitled to the same rights as all other free men. Muslim men would tell you they have the right to marry four wives. Some cultures give women great decision making powers. Other cultures choose to disempower them almost completely.

It took a war to resolve the question of whether slaves were property or whether they were men entitled to the same rights as all other men. If those rights were natural rights, or "God-given" why did it take a war fought by hundreds of thousands of men to obtain them?

I look at rights entirely differently. Rights exist because we human beings have made various decisions in different countries and cultures to establish government and society. In order for people to live peacefully together it becomes necessary for government and society to try to guarantee all its members some rubric of liberty and freedom. What that rubric is may differ dramatically depending on what part of the world one is in. Some societies might think that guaranteeing everyone some minimal standard of living is more critical than others. I suspect we don't do that in America because the early settlers of this continent found abundance pretty much wherever they went and didn't see it as necessary. Other societies might value harmony and cooperation more than personal liberty and are structured in that manner. This does not make us right and them wrong. It makes both our societies different and it offers evidence that the concept of rights and freedoms is essentially cultural rather supernatural in origin.

Its fine to debate rights and perhaps in the final analysis it doesn't really matter where they come from. Its more important to simply recognize the contours of those rights. If people want to believe these are "natural rights" or "God Given rights" that is their own privilege. The only thing I take issue with is when we Americans try to tell everyone else in the world that they need to adopt our particular conception of rights. We have no more right to impose our conception of rights on Mongolia as Mongolia has to impose its conception of rights on us.

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by crystalblue

Do you have the right to happiness?
Fresh water?
An Education? College?
Food?
Life?

Do(Should) these rights change by country?

You have a right to the things you need to survive, water, food, life & the things needed to secure them. You also have many other rights, education is NOT a right in the basic sense. Its a privilage of living in a civilized advanced society, but not a right. Rights exist beyond society. Thats why the right to expression, religion, ARMS etc are enumerated in our constitution. You have a right to PURSUE happiness, but no right to be happy. Things happen & no one can guarentee you happiness. The best we can do is guarentee you the freedom to excercise the rights you really do have in pursuit of happiness.
You use your freedom to secure the things you need & your right of self preservation requires that you have free acess to whatever weapons you need to secure your person & property.

These rights dont change from one place to another. But their recognition does. Some places outright deny their peoples rights. Some, like the USA, respect them in theory, but as our Govt grows our rights diminish. Once your govt views the populace as nothing more than a source of funds you cease being free & become slaves with little or no real rights. We are well down that road right now and need to reverse the trend as soon as we can. As it stands now every time the govt wants more they just take it & get fatter so they take more, and get fatter so take more. The more they need our money the more they need to control us & the less we are allowed to act on our own whim.

[SCGranny]

Originally Posted by matt1984

Sorry but people do have the right to food, water and shelter. Those are basic things all humans need and to not have is just wrong. That kind of idea that these things are not rights are used in other countries where its citizens live in the worst possible poverty possible. Do you really want our country to go there? You know what having no right to food, shelter and water was called back in the day in the U.S. that's right slavery. I am sure you are okay with homelessness in this country I mean they deserve to live on the streets because they couldn't be responsible according to you even though you have no idea why they are homeless or what might be preventing them from not being homeless. Hate to break it to you but we do not live in a everyone for themselves society no matter how much you may want us to.

It's OK, Matt, you don't have to apologize.

I've BEEN homeless - have YOU? That was of course back when it wasn't a socially acceptable rallying point used by liberals to point fingers.

I made bad decisions, and suffered the consequences, and learned from them.

I made better decisions, I profited from them. I didn't ask for help, I helped myself. I pulled myself up and out, and didn't insist that I had a "right" to what others possessed or earned - I earned it for myself.

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by crystalblue

Do you have the right to happiness?
Fresh water?
An Education? College?
Food?
Life?

Do(Should) these rights change by country?

My view as far as rights is this:
First- Have some innate needs we want to take care to survive.
One is food.
Two is water.

That is the bottom line.

The next point is that we also tend to look for the best and most comfortable life we can attain. In reality we can survive ou there with no clothing and shelter.
However, survival chances are reduced if we are out there at the mercy of the elements.

What is next? We look for shelter and clothing to protect ourselves from the elements and our bodies from getting hurt in any shape or form. Our bodies let us know that with pain if we do not use some type of protection on our feet or bodies so we came up with wearing feet protection and body cover.

Now, there are other emotional needs we tend to have as part of the human dimension, sex, social interaction, emotional attachments, the feeling of accomplishment, etc.

I believe what we call rights is simply something we as humans have come up with as time went by to ensure our survival.

We like the animals have shown that we try whatever we need to do to survive. That is why through history we have gone to the next tribe (or state, country, island, etc) to take food when we do not have any available. In other words we decided who has that right, either others or us.

As time passed by we have become more civil. We as nations have developed laws to try to protect each other and to give people the satisfaction to reach those needs and desires we humans look for.

Now, from the standpoint of what the Constitution says, I agree with some of the writers here.

We do not owe anything to anyone. We entitled to the fruit of our labor. If we want to share it, fine, but if not fine also.

Granted that as a nation we may decide to set laws to help those in need. What I mean by needs is people that truly have a disadvantage in life like maybe mentally lacking, some disease that impedes someone to work and be productive citizen.

What I do not agree with is for many people that are selectively label as poor have to get benefits that I and others earned as the product our effort and work.

With that premise I do not agree that food is a right. If you have an able body to do work you then have the personal obligation to work and earn your food, not because you are labeled as poor arbitrarily.

I see some people around my city that fall under both situations. One group I have seen are people that I see outside the grocery store selling tamales or some other thing they cooked to sell to those coming out of the store. Other go into restaurants carrying a box of chewing gum to sell to provide for their families. Also I see those on the street mediums selling the newpaper. Those people even if I do not care for tamales, chewing gum or the newpaper because I get it at home I often buy from them.

However, those that I see on the street, look young and not skinny by any means I do not see them as having the right for the government to take away from me to give it to them. Actually, some of them are not even smart enought because most cities do have homeless shelters that provide food and shelter. There are many churches and non-profit organizations that provide for a lot of these people.

I have no problem if my tax dollars go to help a family that has no means and cannot pay for cancer treatment for a child.

However, I do not believe in blanket programs at national level that mandates that all those that fall under an arbitrary line at a certain income bracket will automatically get free benefits.

I do a lot of community work and a great number of those that fall under the lowest income bracket are out there with their children playing with the latest iPod, have flat screen TVs, etc. We can help others but to say all have a right to this or that simply because they are humans, no. First they need to show they do try to survive and not be a burdent to society. They they do this and show that they cannot make it I am for helping them.
Last point, there are only so many resource available. Sadly, someone will not get everything they wish to have. Some people work harder than others and it is fair to say they have more because of their efforts. If they get more of the resources available, they are entitled to it. To say we need to take away from that individual to give to others becaus it is his right to have, I do not agree.
No system is perfect. There will be poor in any civilization and there will be those that have achieved more. You can put together all the wealth in the world and split it up (redistribute) evenly to the everybody and in time those that are poor will be poor agains and those that are rich will be rich again. Take care.

[matt1984]

Originally Posted by nicet4

So what you are saying is I have no rights to the product of my work? That is what you are saying.

An airplane crash lands on a deserted island and six of the twenty survivors work hard at fishing with long days filled with backbreaking work starting at 4:00 AM and ending well after dark.

The 14 survivors that don't fish are living off the stored food in the airplane but eventually that all runs out. Now they are hongrey and being a democracy and all, and seeing how food is a basic human right, they vote to force the six who have labored for three months to give up their food equally to everyone. To keep all the food for themselves is being greedy and capitalistic.

You don't see a problem with that?

Nobody has any rights to anything my work produces. Zero, nada, none. Got it?

But what I do have is an obligation to take care of those that can not take care of themselves but in the end the choice must be mine to make. For example I have an obligation to care for someone who can not care for themselves. For example someone who has rheumatoid arthritis, severe enough to render them is unable to work, gives to me an obligation to make sure they have food, shelter, medical care and the basic necessities of live they can not provide for themselves. This obligation is not given to me by government or man it is a charge given to me by God which I take very seriously.

But for someone capable but to lazy to work? I owe them nothing.

I did not write clearly what I meant. I should have said everyone who works or can not work due to a disability should have food, water, shelter. I did not mean that lazy people have a right to these things

[Three Wolves In Snow]

If you are asking about the absolute basic, bare bones rights just because you were born, then no, you have no rights simply because you are born and are a human being.

You work to survive by getting your own food, water, shelter and clothing but you do not have a "right" to those things.

We have created a list of rights, depending on what country you live in but if I'm understanding, that isn't what you asked.

[SifuPhil]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

If you are asking about the absolute basic, bare bones rights just because you were born, then no, you have no rights simply because you are born and are a human being.

You work to survive by getting your own food, water, shelter and clothing but you do not have a "right" to those things.

We have created a list of rights, depending on what country you live in but if I'm understanding, that isn't what you asked.

/\/\/\ This.

We're animals - the only "rights" we have are the ones we've invented. None of them are part of the basic package.

I think any other way of looking at it invokes that wonderful human sense of entitlement.

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

If you are asking about the absolute basic, bare bones rights just because you were born, then no, you have no rights simply because you are born and are a human being.

Sure you do, just like every other creature you have a right to try & survive to the best of your ability.

You work to survive by getting your own food, water, shelter and clothing but you do not have a "right" to those things.

We confuse the word "right" with free I think. Just because you have to work to get those things doesn't mean you have no right to them. The rights themselves cost nothing, but excercising them always has. Whether it meant finding a pointy stick or getting a job to buy them. What we dont have is a right to have others pay our way.

We have created a list of rights, depending on what country you live in but if I'm understanding, that isn't what you asked.

Thats where it gets confusing. Governments infring on our basic rights in many ways. Just because you get shot for speaking your mind doesn't mean you have no right to do so.

[grindlemeister]

If a person is able to work, but chooses not to, I can understand the rage from people who work hard everyday. But what about the people who really want to work, but cannot find any work? What about the people who busted their hump in school, acquiring skills that are no longer needed? What if they can't go back to school and learn something that IS needed in 2011, due to financial limitations? What if they're still paying off student loans from when they attended college the first time?

Here's an amusing anecdote: Once upon a time, there was a leprechaun. When he was younger, he earned his living making magic footwear. That is, until peasants started buying cheap shoes made overseas. Unfortunately, the leprechaun was born just to make shoes. It was the only thing he could do right. He tried to do other things many times, but he was so bad at doing anything else, he soon concluded that he was screwed. So, rather than agree to take a handout, he decided that the best thing to do was to end his life instead of taking up space and inconveniencing others. So, he went to the closest bridge, and positioned himself in anticipation of jumping into the river. But lo, and behold, a gang of elves cried out, "Don't do it!" And they grabbed him forthwith. All the while, the leprechaun thought, "They won't give me a handout, which is fine with me. So, why don't they just let me go? I can't have a decent life, but I'm not demanding that others provide me one. However, if I want to leave this mess, it should be my right to do so without clergymen or elves stopping me."

Something tells me a lot of leprechauns will be pulled from a lot bridges in the coming years.

Should leprechauns have the right to end their own lives?

[SportyandMisty]

I believe that alongside of rights there are obligations and responsibilities. It is difficult to think of rights without their concomitant obligations and responsibilities.

For example, once we assert a basic right to life & liberty, then there are obligations and responsibilities of that human being to participate in society in a particular way. If that individual engages in murder, we revoke that individual's right to life & liberty -- we punish that individual through incarceration or execution.

While it is clear that rights are inventions of mankind, there is at least one right for which I cannot think of a counter argument. That is the right to be born free versus born into slavery. I just cannot imagine a set of circumstances or corner cases in which the outcome is that it is OK to be born into slavery. I'm willing to posit that someone may find a set of facts to support it, but I haven't been able to find such a set of facts.