Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Do individual rights exist?

heh,

rights change over time, according to prevailing thought.

back in ancient Athens, Slaves, Women and the insane (as if theres a difference between the three *Ducks*)certainly had different rights to the men, and all these were self evident at the time.

certainly even in the US constitution, originally slaves had far less rights then the white man. When were women allowed to vote?

indeed isnt it writted in one of the US founding documents that "we hold these truths to be self evident". This is a statement that a decision was taken on what rights would be. a decision was made by a select group, informed by prevailaing philosophies and political considerations. Often such agreed upon definitions of rights are codified in a constitution but not always. oh and these rights are clarified by our judicial systems, again decisions - nay even creations of man, informed by prevailing philosophies and political/social considerations

This is the nature of all rights, they are a creation of man, and subject to change at any moment. We can state the nice clean theory of what rights should be, or what we beleive them to be (our own creations, if you will, based on our own philosphies and histories) but the processes and structures around which rights are codified, protected and sometimes enforced are equally important.

I am pretty sure I was addressing a situation where people were exercising co-equivalent rights and came never the less came into conflict through that situation.

Yes, and would this study be a scientific treatise... or a philosophical reflection? Is there a single authoritative study, or is is a matter of opinion and discussion? Is the study a reflection of the culture from which it emerged so that other cultures would inherently agree as might be the case of a study of particle physics or chemistry?

I am still waiting for an answer to what seems the most fundamental question.

I believe I addressed this when I wrote, "I think you are confusing socially agreed upon protocol with rights and conflating “advantage” with an unfounded requirement for “equity”, as well as expecting another or others to provide you assistance in the course of you exercising your right. By the way, two or more people are quite capable of speaking simultaneously – it is done all the time.:-)"

One does not have a right to syncrhonicity, Ardy. And I think you fully know that.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

I think I have already expressed my opinion on this and provided my reasoning, but to repeat myself, I think the nature of a right is that action which is integral to the nature of man, does not require the forced assistance of others in order to be exercised, does not initiate aggression against another, and can be engaged in or exercised without violating the rights of another. It is good enough for me. But then, I am a laid-back, easy-going, live-and-let-live kinda guy.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Humm, you seem to define rights as a set of actions. That is not at all my understanding. I was thinking of rights more as the conceptual entitlement to action (or inaction). In trying to figure this out, I came accross the following that seems to me to be a good beginning

link

Of course others are free to refine or refute the above as they feel is warranted. But for me, the above does a fairly good job of capturing the concept that most people have when they use the word "rights"

To make a choice is an action, Ardy. For example: If I chose to express an idea that is an action and my right. If I chose to not express an idea that is also an action and my right. If I chose to associate or assemble with others that is an action and my right. If I chose to not associate or assemble with others tha is an action and my right. If I chose to maintain my privacy that is an action and my right. If I chose to not maintain my privacy that is an action and my right.

If all you have left is a semantic quibble, I am going to have to conclude that this thread has probably reached its end.
Yours,
Issodhos

This is true, yet I would submit, that if the changes in rights move in the direction of an enfranchisement universality for humanity, regardless of perceived differences between individuals, as well as towards a decrease in state sanctioning of persons' acts, which do not directly impair another person's liberty, then it progresses positively.

I do not agree that it is a sematic quibble. If you choose to leave the discussion, it is your right... which is to say you are entitled to make a choice.

That said, would you prefer the following definition