![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
symbioidljOriginal Post, my reply and other replies are here
Which was a mistaken post to my journal instead of a reply. I had received this reply and my reply is further below. Any comments are appreciated. :)
------- (Their response to my initial post) ----------
However, the biggest problem that I have with that is that it leads certain individuals (i.e. those with property) to have more rights than others (i.e. homeless people).
The state of property ownership doesn't grant you rights. You have the same natural rights whether you happen to be a billionaire or a homeless person with nothing but the clothes on your back. You have the same rights if you're living naked on a tropical island all by yourself.
Whether it is fundamentally fair that a wealthy person can obtain a prestigious and skilled attorney to escape or lessen punishments to which a homeless person would be subjected after their public defender fumbles the ball--and the even thornier question of whether we should do anything about this fundamental unfairness--is a separate issue. But it is not that the wealthy person has any mysterious "wealthy-person-only" rights that the homeless person does not.
------- (My Reply) ----------
I guess there's a few points of contention in our discussion that would need to be clarified. I have a feeling we approach things from different angles on at least two points.
1) The nature of "rights": That is to say... "What is a right?" I shall limit it in this context to the issue of privacy (which is really what I meant to say.) Privacy is not a "right" in the US Constitution, though we cherish it an awful lot. That said, assuming that we do appreciate and honor it as a right, there is still a discrepency. It naturally follows that if someone has property to live on, they have a certain amount of privacy which a homeless person, without that property, does not have. You can talk semantics and say they still have that right. But de facto denial of granted rights essentially means NO right.
It would be as if I were to give you a thousand dollars, and then told you: You just can't spend it. You can have it all you want. But what good is it if it can't be put into use? Now, seeing as how I used the term "right" instead of "privacy" you are correct. In theory we have public defenders who are supposed to be as skilled as expensive attorneys... Of course we all know that's completely not true. I'm not going to argue that with you.
2) The other issue I am curious to know about is the question of the origin of rights. If, as you say "we all have the same rights" (you use the term natural right, which appears to be taken from a more Constitutional, perhaps Libertarian (as in the party) point of view. Pleas correct me if I'm wrong.), where are these rights derived from? The founding fathers were Deists and appropriately used their reasoning to derive a set of rights based upon their philosophical premise.
I tend to follow Mao's statement that "power flows from the barrel of a gun." This is the source of "right." Not from a personal ethics (Theory) standpoint, but from a political and sociological standpoint (Praxis.) If we have different view of the origins of right, then we may never come to agreement. So be it.
3) What are these rights of which I speak? The issue of privacy, as I noted, is not guaranteed in the constitution. I add my own rights to what I perceive as sociological rights that are to be granted (ie: they are not natural, since I don't believe that they are ordained by "nature and nature's god.") These rights are the right to necessities of survival (Food, Shelter, Clothing, (clean) Water) And also the right to improve ones condition (this includes Education, Communication and Transportation. Especially the right to education, and higher education at that.)
I note that these rights are not to be construed as being equal in terms of ownership. There should be a minimum standard for all, but people don't automatically have a right to big designer name clothes, or a nice mansion.
Since my philosophy is always evolving and my knowledge is quite limited, I will not say that this is complete truth, even though I feel a moral conviction towards it's rightness. I am still working on how this applies in terms of distribution. Does a rich person have a right to better health care than a poor person? Do they have a right to make billions of dollars? My personal stance is "no." I am interested in hearing alternative POV's, but right now, I think wealth disparity and the feudalism that we still live in is quite dangerous to an individual's rights. I could also touch upon the issue of Maslow's Hierarchy, and how that it serves our corporate/feudal system to limit satisfaction of these basic needs (as animals and social creatures.) It makes more "holes" to fill.
Which was a mistaken post to my journal instead of a reply. I had received this reply and my reply is further below. Any comments are appreciated. :)
------- (Their response to my initial post) ----------
However, the biggest problem that I have with that is that it leads certain individuals (i.e. those with property) to have more rights than others (i.e. homeless people).
The state of property ownership doesn't grant you rights. You have the same natural rights whether you happen to be a billionaire or a homeless person with nothing but the clothes on your back. You have the same rights if you're living naked on a tropical island all by yourself.
Whether it is fundamentally fair that a wealthy person can obtain a prestigious and skilled attorney to escape or lessen punishments to which a homeless person would be subjected after their public defender fumbles the ball--and the even thornier question of whether we should do anything about this fundamental unfairness--is a separate issue. But it is not that the wealthy person has any mysterious "wealthy-person-only" rights that the homeless person does not.
------- (My Reply) ----------
I guess there's a few points of contention in our discussion that would need to be clarified. I have a feeling we approach things from different angles on at least two points.
1) The nature of "rights": That is to say... "What is a right?" I shall limit it in this context to the issue of privacy (which is really what I meant to say.) Privacy is not a "right" in the US Constitution, though we cherish it an awful lot. That said, assuming that we do appreciate and honor it as a right, there is still a discrepency. It naturally follows that if someone has property to live on, they have a certain amount of privacy which a homeless person, without that property, does not have. You can talk semantics and say they still have that right. But de facto denial of granted rights essentially means NO right.
It would be as if I were to give you a thousand dollars, and then told you: You just can't spend it. You can have it all you want. But what good is it if it can't be put into use? Now, seeing as how I used the term "right" instead of "privacy" you are correct. In theory we have public defenders who are supposed to be as skilled as expensive attorneys... Of course we all know that's completely not true. I'm not going to argue that with you.
2) The other issue I am curious to know about is the question of the origin of rights. If, as you say "we all have the same rights" (you use the term natural right, which appears to be taken from a more Constitutional, perhaps Libertarian (as in the party) point of view. Pleas correct me if I'm wrong.), where are these rights derived from? The founding fathers were Deists and appropriately used their reasoning to derive a set of rights based upon their philosophical premise.
I tend to follow Mao's statement that "power flows from the barrel of a gun." This is the source of "right." Not from a personal ethics (Theory) standpoint, but from a political and sociological standpoint (Praxis.) If we have different view of the origins of right, then we may never come to agreement. So be it.
3) What are these rights of which I speak? The issue of privacy, as I noted, is not guaranteed in the constitution. I add my own rights to what I perceive as sociological rights that are to be granted (ie: they are not natural, since I don't believe that they are ordained by "nature and nature's god.") These rights are the right to necessities of survival (Food, Shelter, Clothing, (clean) Water) And also the right to improve ones condition (this includes Education, Communication and Transportation. Especially the right to education, and higher education at that.)
I note that these rights are not to be construed as being equal in terms of ownership. There should be a minimum standard for all, but people don't automatically have a right to big designer name clothes, or a nice mansion.
Since my philosophy is always evolving and my knowledge is quite limited, I will not say that this is complete truth, even though I feel a moral conviction towards it's rightness. I am still working on how this applies in terms of distribution. Does a rich person have a right to better health care than a poor person? Do they have a right to make billions of dollars? My personal stance is "no." I am interested in hearing alternative POV's, but right now, I think wealth disparity and the feudalism that we still live in is quite dangerous to an individual's rights. I could also touch upon the issue of Maslow's Hierarchy, and how that it serves our corporate/feudal system to limit satisfaction of these basic needs (as animals and social creatures.) It makes more "holes" to fill.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-01 08:21 am (UTC)Why? What is the origin of your belief that people have a right to any level of material possession?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-01 06:35 pm (UTC)I am of the school that "In the REAL <®> world" there is no such thing. We are "mere animals," and it is only through power that one claims a right. Once power is taken, those who have it must necessarily distribute a small amount of it in order to stay in power. Whether this be through concessions to the landed gentry, as in the Magna Carta, or in a Constitutional devolution of power to "the people or the states"... Certain obligations of individuals are given to society in order to keep a larger peace, a peace which keeps that power in place. The reason I state this is to note a few things.
1) There is no inherent "right" to anything, except that which one claims for oneself and stakes a boundary/frontier. This is a materialistic conception, and it is essentially the way the world works.
2) When discussing rights, we make reference to metaphorical constructs that go beyond any pure natural state. I am not a Deist in the sense that I don't believe there are "natural laws" save for an individual to inherently exist (only if one is taking a non-Buddhist view, of course). Any law beyond that is a contractual, social obligation that has evolved in course of struggle between varying modes of power...
3) That said, it must surely be noted that any sort of "right" that I expound is merely my moral stance, and cannot be rooted in anything in the natural world. Morals are a human construct. The universe couldn't give two shits if you were tortured or not.
4) As depressing as that is, I must state that I'm not a nihilist, but embrace a more existentialist way of thought that says we must forge our own ethics in this void of morals.
5) Now, why do I claim a right to this? Why does one claim an opposite right? Again, it's all social construct. I revile the hierarchies of power that have evolved over the millenia. Let me reframe the issue... It's not a matter of whether someone has a right or not. At this point, there is a system in place that is one based upon de facto ownership. This is a truth. I cannot argue with the fact that there is such a thing as ownership. The question then is: If people do own things, is it right for there to be such disparity between wealthy and poor when it comes to essential survival needs? One either acknowledges that an individual has a right to exist, or not. If one does acknowledge that as a fundamental right (which I do. I consider this a postulate. You may question it. I haven't at this point. I may at some future time. But for now, it is a given to me)... If you recognize the right to exist, at what point is that right not given? I am a libertarian in the sense that I believe it is up to the individual to choose their right to exist. It is not up to anyone else. The only case I may have an exception on are child-killers and elderly and disabled people. As a society, I believe it is a moral right to defend the weak from the powerful. In fact, this is what the social contract is in part.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 01:22 pm (UTC)I'll grant that we have a right to fight for our own existance. The rabbit has a "right" to try to sneak into my garden and eat my vegetables. That's part of survival. I don't believe that anyone has a right to impose on anyone else for their existance, however. The rabbit doesn't have a right to demand that I leave my garden unfenced so he can wander in freely and eat my vegetables.
Talking about things like "wealth disparity" being right or wrong implies that someone who has no money, property, physical possessions, etc. may have a right to demand that someone else provide for them at some level. I don't buy that. Oftentimes people will *choose* to share what they have, and that often happens in society as people choose to provide for the weak, disabled, young, old, etc. That's part of survival too, because any one of us, no matter how healthy, could in an instant become weak or disabled. It makes good survival sense to create a system that helps provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves. But it's not an inherent responsibility.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-01 06:35 pm (UTC)6) Again, what is "existence"? And do I merely support the right to exist, or do I hold that there is a right to evolve. If I believe that there is a right of the individual to move forward in their life, to grow and change, in other words, not merely to exist, but "TO LIVE"... Stasis is death. If there is a right to evolve, there must be a right to access to tools that can help you evolve.
7) These tools, however, are not necessarily just for evolution, but entertainment as well. That's why I limit the Right of Possession to those things that ensure survival of the individual and their progeny, and the advancement of their well-being. This comes into effect primarily on the physical level: Housing, Food, Health Care, Clothing. There are then the things that, as humans, we need in order to evolve within the framework of society: Education, Communication, Transportation.
8) Now, I think one thing it's important to note is that our current system places rights in the context of the negative. It is what society isn't allowed to do to you. In this sense, it's like paying the mob money so they don't kick your ass. But in this "negative enumeration of rights," they are not guaranteeing the things that I mentioned above. That is why I believe in a positive enumeration of rights as well.
9) These positive attribution of rights are limited rights to functions of survival in our modern society. They do not require society to furnish beyond these rights. Any further rights are part of further evolving social contracts.
10) These rights are also not to be construed as a limit to what one can attain. The individual's right to choose against their own positively given rights are inviolate.
I know that this doesn't really get to the point of your question. And one can nitpick and deal with further nuances between what is allowed and what isn't. But as I said, that is for the socially accepted form of power structure to decide.
All these are IDEALS. They are not fact, they are not anything but a moral stance that I take. Reality is not this way. But I believe it is best to work towards that ideal.
I would like, later, to get into the issue of the ethics of work and just remuneration. I'm not as coherent as I'd like to be because I'm tired and my brain isn't functioning at full level. But that's no excuse for this shitty reply that really goes nowhere (as all good philosophy should :)
One may say that an Ideal is a sort of "Logos" or Nature's Word/the LAW upon which the physical, imperfect reflection is built. This gets into a much more abstract realm of my philosophy, which again, I'll have to touch on later.
If you'd like, please subscribe to my blog:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/symbioid_rss/
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 01:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-01 09:39 am (UTC)Though I wouldn't say that a rich person has a right to better health care, it's simply a privlage. I think a lot of what's being discussed is privlages. Rights are something guarenteed to all (like free speach or to legal representation). Someone who's rich can be denied health care, it's not a right.