Subject: United States: Election Time

ok, end of fair discussion, we restart with rethorical army.
The sense of my speech is quite plain, if you twist words you can turn them as you like, but it doesn't make sense at all.

I'll repeat it, the error is in giving the name "right" to something that can't be a RIGHT.
Only alive, conscious and able person have rights.
The rest of beings no.

I bet you cannot answer this simple question without changing your stupid logic.

I don't see any contestation in your post.
The right is always on someother person than the boy.
case 1. state law rules the problem (for other peoples reasons)
case 2. state law rules the problem (for other peoples reasons)

I don't see any difference.

Edit:
Why would the 1st child deserve the needed time while the 2nd one would not?

who said it? you?
I'll say the state rule can decide whatever combination of can/can't you can imagine.

(edited)

Ok, I am also losing my patience with you here. You are stating the obvious. Of course that state laws can rule whatever the state bloody well likes. I don't care about what laws would e.g. Hitler's state be able to imagine and make. I am exchanging opinions here about what would be ideal based on our generally accepted ideas of fairness and justice.

And really, if you don't understand what moral rights are, then it is really futile to discuss with you. There is no law that forbids you to slam the door in front of the face of a person behind you but almost anybody knows that it's wrong. That is because it is our moral right not to get the door slammed by another person in front of our face. That we don't have a law about is a practical issue and not because we don't know it.

State makes laws because it tries to structure moral rights in the best way it can but that doesn't mean that people don't have these rights before the state actually makes them. Anyway, we are the state. We make it and the laws as well.

State makes laws because it tries to structure moral rights in the best way

false,
laws are the aggregation of the balance of power in a society.
There's nothing moral (unless you put it in).

We punish murder because we prefer to live in a society that doesn't allow it, not sure for some moral value (in fact there were a lot of society without this rule in history).


State makes laws because it tries to structure moral rights in the best way it can but that doesn't mean that people don't have these rights before the state actually makes them.

false!
Rights are a creation of structurated relationship (a state), a man alone on a island has no rights.


Anyway, this discussion is useless, if you will never admit what a right really is (for political science from at least 3 centuries..).
Unborn has no rights.
vegetative state man has no rights
animals has no rights
rocks..
what have this categories in common?
They can't express a valid will, and can't act to get what they want.

Can we do rules about unborn, rocks or animals? Yes, of course!
but those rule will never create a right upon them, but always upon us.

Abortion discussion, at this point, get a question about what WE want for us to do in the case of unborn.
What we want? I want x and you y.
have I a motivation to deny your y? no
have you a motivation to deny my x? no

So let people live their life as they prefer, without introducing youself in their personal choices!
(edited)

Man, your logic is so wrong that it is completely hopeless for you to understand how false it is because by using it you simply can never succeed.

a man alone on a island has no rights

He has rights, my dear el pupe. It is just that he defines them for himself and would have to enforce them by himself on him as well. It is an absurd situation. Yes. Similarly to talking to oneself but a man alone on the island also talks to himself when he's got no one to talk to. So, when he's got no one to negotiate his rights with, he does that with himself.

E.g. he says: "I got aproximately 1800 coconuts per year, so, I need to eat max 5/day. That is my right. 5 coconuts per day." And then he's hungry and wants more and breaks his rule and eats 10 coconuts per day. Then because of breaking the rule he needs to change the rule and reduce the daily amount. That's his punishment for breaking the rule. No one will come and give him the extra coconuts that he spent.

So, having rights is a default condition. Defining rules or laws about our rights is not. Can you really not understand this? Please, don't say you don't. :(

Where do you find those ideas of right please ? Gimme links...

I verified into some definitions and always found that right implies at least 2 persons (worse definition talk about civilization, society, organisation...). To have right to do sth implies obligatory that another (law, person) gives you the right to do otherwise there is no need of any right.


About your example : you talk about food... and his need to stay alive... A need is not related at all with a right... You failed here totally.

A man alone needs no rights at all... As he is alone :-)...

a man alone on a island has no rights

He has rights, my dear el pupe.

well at this is useless to respond.

But let me ask one thing:
what is a right for you? just to know what are you talking about..

just to know, because for the rest of the world is something else.
for sure, when you talk at the bar with friends, you can say right for a something that is not a right but something else, but you can't use this word this way in a discussion about laws and laws puproses.

but you can't use this word this way in a discussion about laws and laws puproses.

A moral right has nothing to do with the law.

and so nothing to do with asking to forbid people to do something by law?
can you defy "moral right"?

Jesus, guys, this discussion really is on elementary school level. You should really be able to do abstract thinking.

I really don't know where I find these ideas as I don't keep track of source of my knowledge. I just know that it's true and that there must be something out there to support it. Here, maybe we have some luck today: Rights.

So, it seems that our Johnny Castaway's coconuts would be an example of a natural positive individual right. But this is really a somewhat abstract example. E.g., if he's alone there, language also becomes an abstract idea too. What's the purpose of language if you talk to yourself? Could we say that there is no language when a person is alone and doesn't use it?

If there would come more people to this island, then his coconut rights would become less abstract and then they start to get social complexity. This group of people would have to redefine the individual coconut rule: make it a group right and redefine the individual amounts. Also, they would have to agree who will monitor application of the rule and what would be individual consequences if someone starts eating more coconuts than assigned. But that right would not start to exist because a 2nd person comes to the island. The right was already there! Johnny was using it! It was only less complex. He was the only party.

Also, Johnny could claim that he has more rights because he came there first. So, even though he is alone there, he may already have property rights because of "finders, keepers" principle. Again, this property right is again only abstract because he is alone at first. But it comes into force as soon another person appears. He might also claim that these are all his coconuts and that others that came later have to work for him to get them. So, they would not have this right at all without earning it first.
(edited)

I really don't know where I find these ideas as I don't keep track of source of my knowledge. I just know that it's true and that there must be something out there to support it.

umh..

(but the entire post is mirror-climbing)

Jesus, guys, this discussion really is on elementary school level. You should really be able to do abstract thinking.

I really don't know where I find these ideas as I don't keep track of source of my knowledge. I just know that it's true and that there must be something out there to support it. Here, maybe we have some luck today:

Just these types of answers always made me laugh :-)... At least you managed to do a good thing ;-)

Even abstract example should be related with reality ;-)... Let's say he is alone because there never be any other human... Where do come from right ? Lol !! Natural positive individual right ? He would not know what is individual ! :-p... Let be serious man...
Let's say he becomes alone after a shipwreck, he got his ideas about right only because he lived into a community :-p... Again absolute non sense to say he has right... Even if he would use ancient rights he learnt from his community, nobody would challenge him... And mainly, this is supposed that all rights determined in his old world were determined when people were more than alone :-D... Hmmm... Maybe you are talking about schizophrenic guy

And just for info, i obviously used your luck today by viewing some sources abou rights before answering (me)
(edited)

Well, you can laugh as much as you want to but the joke is on you. I intuitively understood that Johnny Castaway has rights and now I informed myself and checked whether I am really that funny and crazy as you say and I found out that I am not the only one nor the first one who claims this.

E.g. John Locke agrees.

And then some more:
Shorter
Longer

This is taken from : Natural and legal rights

John Locke
Main article: John Locke

John Locke (1632–1704) was another prominent Western philosopher who conceptualized rights as natural and inalienable. Like Hobbes, Locke was a major social contract thinker. He said that man's natural rights are life, liberty, and property. It was once conventional wisdom that Locke greatly influenced the American Revolutionary War with his writings of natural rights, but this claim has been the subject of protracted dispute in recent decades. For example, the historian Ray Forrest Harvey declared that Jefferson and Locke were at "two opposite poles" in their political philosophy, as evidenced by Jefferson’s use in the Declaration of Independence of the phrase "pursuit of happiness" instead of "property."[9] More recently, the eminent[10] legal historian John Phillip Reid has deplored contemporary scholars’ "misplaced emphasis on John Locke," arguing that American revolutionary leaders saw Locke as a commentator on established constitutional principles.[11][12] Thomas Pangle has defended Locke's influence on the Founding, claiming that historians who argue to the contrary either misrepresent the classical republican alternative to which they say the revolutionary leaders adhered, do not understand Locke, or point to someone else who was decisively influenced by Locke.[13] This position has also been sustained by Michael Zuckert.[14][15][16]

According to Locke there are three natural rights:

Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

The social contract is an agreement between members of a country to live within a shared system of laws. Specific forms of government are the result of the decisions made by these persons acting in their collective capacity. Government is instituted to make laws that protect these three natural rights. If a government does not properly protect these rights, it can be overthrown.

Can you understand that these rights have no sense if a man is totally alone ???
Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Who can delete this man alone ? Nobody... Thus, there is no need of any right... End of discussion... And the right begins to exist as soon as 2 persons are concerned as Locke had imagined this... It had sense in his mind only because humans already lived on earth without legal rights... So obvious...

and so nothing to do with asking to forbid people to do something by law?
can you defy "moral right"?

I'll try to explain it as good as I can.

There are different categories: 1) Legal rights, 2) Moral rights and 3) Moral duties.

1) Is what the law at this very moment says what the rights of people are. Most of the time, it is decided democratically.

2) Is what a person believes are the basic rights of people. This is personal.

3) Is what a person believes is the right thing to do in order to be a good person.

Let me show that with an example.

I think (2) that every man has the moral right to receive the benefits from his actions. So if a man works, the profits he makes are his and nobody can put a claim on those. (Unless he voluntarily states he doesn't want the benefits, but then again, it is his choice what happens with the benefits.) However, the law (1) says that there is an income tax, and therefore, the man I was talking about will not get all the profits he made. Against his will. Now I believe (3) that the right thing to do is to be solidary with the less fortunate. However, it is his moral right (2) not to do so, but due to (1) he isn't allowed to be selfish by the state (which is wrong to me because he has the moral right to be selfish).

The law (1) is often something a lot of people have in common in either the second category or the third category. Not always though. Every person on this planet wants that what he considers basic rights (2) becomes the law (1).

One of the basic rights (2) I believe in is the right on life. That's why I want that to become law (and a lot of laws I want to abolish as they are to me no basic right (2) and I believe category 3 should not be mandatory).

Now if you still don't get it, never mind.

According to Locke there are three natural rights:

Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

Indeed. And those three natural rights should be written in the law. Which is why abortion should be forbidden (except for the cases I pointed out), see the first natural right.