The fetishization of "Freedom."

reply to post by Maslo

What you speak about are abilities. Not rights. Facts, not oughts. Simple descriptions, not prescriptions. There is nothing in the fact that life is alive prescribing that we should not kill it.

Here is where you confuse the issue. The right to life is not "prescriptive", what is prescriptive is the prohibition on murder. The source of that legislative act is the right to life, not morality.

What is the difference between your rights, and abilities?

The mute still has the right to speech, the illiterate still have the right to press, the agoraphobic still has the right to peaceably assemble, and the agnostic still has the right of religious worship. The cripple has the right to walk, the blind has the right to see, and the deaf have the right to hear.

Indeed they are. Otherwise there is no need for the new word, "ability" would suffice.

The homeless have the right to property regardless of their ability to secure a home. They have the right, once they do secure that home without disparaging or denying the rights of others, to that home. The homeless current lack of ability to have a home does not diminish his, or her right to property.

The cripples right to walk is not diminished by his, or her, inability to walk. The blinds right to see is not diminished by their inability to see. It is not as if a cripple who has been cured of whatever crippled him, or her, is now under a conundrum where they no longer have the right to walk, and the same for the blind, or the mute.

Ability describes what you speak of - life can live, roses can keep and bear thorns, skunk can spew its stink. With no prescriptive obligations for anyone or anything.

There is no "prescriptive" obligation to cure the cripple, blind, mute or deaf, and yet they have the right to walk, see, speak, and hear. Their inability to do so does not preclude them from finding ways in which to walk, see, speak, or hear, and as long as they have found these ways without "prescriptive" measures then they have done this by right.

The word "right" goes beyond that. It says something should not be interfered with (prescription).

No, it does not. The right to speech does not "say" that speech must not be interfered with. Any person can shout down another and interfere with their right to speech, but no person can prohibit that person from speaking.

I have a right to live means my life should not be terminated (as opposed to "I can live", which carries no prescription).

If you try to kill me and my only option is kill or be killed, I have the right to terminate your life. I have this right because you attempted to prohibit my right to life and I have the right to self defense, so no the right to life does not mean that life should not be terminated, it means that I live by right, not by decree.

No. Because its his ability.

The ant who has no ability to communicate still has the right to do so.

The same applies to law. Law is necessarily prescriptive. It would be pointless to have a purely descriptive law, such as "gravitational acceleration is 9,81 m/s2". All laws are prescriptive, such as "You should not commit murder", "You should not steal". Prescriptions.

Gravity is not "prescriptive", it is a phenomenon that acts in certain ways, but gravity did not prevent humans from building apparatuses to fly or escape the planet. Nor were flying devices and rockets in anyway a violation of law.

Legislation is the source of law (besides international treaties, and judicial decisions in some countries). And morality (some value systems) are the sources of legislation, treaties and decisions.

Legislation is no more the source of law than a map is the source of territory, the word horse is the source of horse, or a picture of a pipe is the source of a pipe. Legislation can either describe law, or fail to do so, but it cannot be law. Law exists with or without legislatures.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Here is where you confuse the issue. The right to life is not "prescriptive", what is prescriptive is the prohibition on murder. The source of that legislative act is the right to life, not morality.

Then right = ability.

The mute still has the right to speech, the illiterate still have the right to press, the agoraphobic still has the right to peaceably assemble, and the agnostic still has the right of religious worship. The cripple has the right to walk, the blind has the right to see, and the deaf have the right to hear.

The homeless have the right to property regardless of their ability to secure a home. They have the right, once they do secure that home without disparaging or denying the rights of others, to that home. The homeless current lack of ability to have a home does not diminish his, or her right to property.

The cripples right to walk is not diminished by his, or her, inability to walk. The blinds right to see is not diminished by their inability to see. It is not as if a cripple who has been cured of whatever crippled him, or her, is now under a conundrum where they no longer have the right to walk, and the same for the blind, or the mute.

Such right is not grounded in any physical reality (so it cannot be derived from nature). You simply declared that it is so, but that does not make it so.
Earlier you argued that right is a right because thats what something does naturally "Living things live, therefore have a right to live, porcupine tree bears needles therefore has a right to do so, dog can bark therefore has a right to do so..". But suddenly, right is not derived from natural abilities? People have a right to something that they do not have an ability to do? Make up your mind.

What determines your rights, if not natural abilities as you argued earlier? Potential? Is right = potential? I have a potential to do x, therefore I have a right to do x? Has the mute right to speech, because it has a potential to speak (even if at the moment he cannot fulfill it)?

If the rights are not something that really exists as a physical fact in nature (either abilities/attributes, or at least potential abilities), then you cannot say they come from nature. From what you have written so far, you seemed to equate rights with abilities, and now you seem to equate them with potential abilities.

The right to speech does not "say" that speech must not be interfered with. Any person can shout down another and interfere with their right to speech, but no person can prohibit that person from speaking.

Your second bolded sentence contradicts the first bolded sentence.

Of course I can prohibit other person from speaking, if I have the ability to do so and enforce it.

If you try to kill me and my only option is kill or be killed, I have the right to terminate your life. I have this right because you attempted to prohibit my right to life and I have the right to self defense, so no the right to life does not mean that life should not be terminated, it means that I live by right, not by decree.

Nothing which can be derived from nature (facts), unless you mean "ability", or at least "potentia" by right.
Abstract principles are not real in nature.

The ant who has no ability to communicate still has the right to do so.

So right is nothing that exists in physical reality. It is an abstract concept. QED.

Gravity is not "prescriptive"

I never said that, I provided it as an example of descriptive physical law.

Legislation is no more the source of law than a map is the source of territory, the word horse is the source of horse, or a picture of a pipe is the source of a pipe. Legislation can either describe law, or fail to do so, but it cannot be law. Law exists with or without legislatures.

We can point out the territory (the source of map) in nature. We can point out the horse in nature. You have so far failed to point out where in nature such abstract "law" (which should be the source of legislation) exists. And mind you, we are not talking about descriptive physical laws, but prescriptive laws such as "You should not commit murder", "You should not steal". You cannot find those in nature. Source of such laws is manmade legislation. Such laws are manmade. To ignore so is to ignore physical reality and substitute it with abstract fairy tales.

"You should not commit murder" does not exist in nature. If you think so, point it out.

reply to post by Maslo


Let's start with this insanity of yours:

Earlier you argued that right is a right because thats what something does naturally "Living things live, therefore have a right to live, porcupine tree bears needles therefore has a right to do so, dog can bark therefore has a right to do so..". But suddenly, right is not derived from natural abilities? People have a right to something that they do not have an ability to do? Make up your mind.

Make up my mind? You have falsely put quotes around words that I never posted. You are willfully lying and clearly because you have lost this debate and simply refuse to accept that. Your strawman is pathetic.

You foolishly ask what determines rights when I have all ready answered this question. What determines rights are those actions - outside of defense - that cause no harm. Ability has nothing to do with rights.

And of course, I never once made the argument that rights were natural abilities. You're really desperate, aren't you? If your cause is so just then why are you lying?

You have lost all sense of logic while wallowing in your fallacies. You claim that when I say: "The right to speech does not "say" that speech must not be interfered with. Any person can shout down another and interfere with their right to speech, but no person can prohibit that person from speaking", you inexplicably call this a contradiction. How is shouting down another person speaking prohibiting their speech? Is that what you think is the contradiction? Are you suggesting that the right to speech is a prescriptive measure that has outlawed booing speakers? Seriously?

Of course I can prohibit other person from speaking, if I have the ability to do so and enforce it.

You can certainly try, and you may even accomplish it, but it does not make it lawful.

Declaring rights "abstracts" does not make them so. What evidence have you that rights are "abstract"?

If law must be able to be pointed to then point to gravity in the same way you would point to territory or a horse. You cannot do so and in fact must use abstracts to describe gravity but you can not show us gravity.

You end your post with just another strawman and in doing so you've gone from fail to epic fail.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What determines rights are those actions - outside of defense - that cause no harm.

Finally you defined what do you specifically mean by rights. Congratulations. Was rambling about skunks and roses necessary? Why not simply post your definition in the first reply, instead of pointless talk about nature?

Now tell me what in nature says that your definition of rights should be more correct or more physically real than other definitions of rights (such as positive rights). Because thats what we are arguing about - not what are rights, but why do you think your definition of them is derived from nature and somehow superior or more funfamental/objective (instead of being a manmade subjective concept that it is), and other definitions based on different moral theories are not.

How is shouting down another person speaking prohibiting their speech?

Isnt it obvious? By shouting them down you prohibit them from speaking.

Declaring rights "abstracts" does not make them so. What evidence have you that rights are "abstract"?

You cannot point them out in nature, measure them, literally nothing you can do with real, material things.

If law must be able to be pointed to then point to gravity in the same way you would point to territory or a horse.

Gravity can be proven to exist and objectively measured with various instruments:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Show me similar physical measurements of "rights" or "laws".

reply to post by Maslo


What do you mean by finally? I defined rights on page two here:

Outside of defense, anything a person does that causes no harm is done by right. This is not government granted right, but unalienable right.

You replied to that post of mine here. Given that, it would be more correct to say that finally you understand what I am saying, or finally you started paying attention. No congratulations for such sloppiness is in order, however.

Why should I take anything you say beyond that seriously when you are insisting now that I have only just given this definition?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Why should I take anything you say beyond that seriously when you are insisting now that I have only just given this definition?

Because it would be a logical fallacy to dismiss my other unrelated legitimate points just because I have not noticed you provided your definition of rights earlier (but perhaps you indeed want to avoid them because you have no counterargument, and this would be a convenient excuse to do so?).

Your definition is that - still only a subjective declaration you made, nothing that can be derived from nature objectively, which is your main point. An islamist can declare "rights are what Allah gave us in the Quran", and he will be equally objectively correct as your declaration of rights, that rights are "anything a person does that causes no harm outside of defense". A socialist can declare "bourgeouise have no right to excess value produced by the proletariat", and he will be equally objectively correct (no at all).
Rights are subjective and derived from ones moral system.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I also want to return to the issue of natural law, which you ignored. "Natural" laws are prescriptive, such as "You should not commit murder", "You should not steal".

Derive them from something in nature (something descriptive), or stop claiming laws come from nature. You have not proven so.

reply to post by Maslo


First you say this:

Finally you defined what do you specifically mean by rights. Congratulations. Was rambling about skunks and roses necessary? Why not simply post your definition in the first reply, instead of pointless talk about nature?

Then without even owning up to your error, you say this:

Your definition is that - still only a subjective declaration you made, nothing that can be derived from nature objectively, which is your main point.

Of course, my main point is not that rights are derived from nature, my main point in this thread is that no intelligent discussion on freedom can be had without a discussion on rights. Indeed, on page two - my initial post was on page one but was really just me teasing Ashley more than anything else - I make no mention at all about nature, or natural. In fact, the only person on page two who does speak to natural rights is you! Now you are sloppily attempting to make it appear as if rights being derived from nature is my main point.

Own up to your errors, stop the strawman arguments and I'll continue the discussion on rights with you. Until that time, I will just keep pointing out your lies.

reply to post by Maslo


Man watching you flail contradicting yourself trying to prove a nebulous point (I haven't quite figured out what you're trying to even say) is really kind of fun.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Of course, my main point is not that rights are derived from nature

False:

Neither you, nor the Wikipedia article you linked have shown how it is natural rights cannot come from nature, it is just something you keep repeating over and over again hoping that at some point it will become true.

The right to life is irrefutably derived from nature.

Life did not become a right only because some human thought it up.

The same about your numerous statements about "law" somehow coming from nature (did Constitution grow on trees?), when anyone can check that legislators and international treaties (societal consensus) are the source of laws, not some mystical "nature".

You have failed to prove your points (how could you, deriving prescriptive law from nature, oughts from is, was proven impossible by worlds most famous philosophers), so its only understandable you want to backpedal from the discussion.

reply to post by Mkoll


I dare you to show a single logical contradiction in my posts. I bet you cant.

reply to post by Maslo


You're a real piece of work slick. After you've all ready been exposed to be either a liar or have some sort of reading comprehension deficiency, now you attempt to take a post of mine that I wrote in reply to your insistence on referring to unalienable rights as "natural rights" here, taking my reply and now using it in a desperate, and wholly illogical effort to show that the main crux of my argument has been natural rights. You declined to link that quote of mine because it is at the bottom of page three, and of course, I have all ready shown that on page two I made perfectly clear what the crux of my argument was.

You remember page two don't you? That's the page where I made the argument that rights can be determined by the fact that they are either actions that cause no harm, or actions in defense of life, limb or property. You remember that argument don't you? Oh, that's right you didn't read that argument before your knee jerked and you just had to reply to my post on page two without reading it in its entirety, only to later, and only after I finally repeated that argument, act as if I had not all ready made that argument.

You remember that, don't you? That's when you asked my why I didn't just make that argument to begin with.

You've relied so heavily on Wikipedia as your only source of law to back up your claims it reveals your profound ignorance of law. Wikipedia is a fine encyclopedia to turn to as a beginners primer for a subject, but if all you can do is point to Wikipedia in an odd attempt to show erudition, the erudite will only find you amusing, which is now the case in this thread because you just don't know when to quit, or even how to admit when you're wrong.

A simple admission of your errors would have gone a long way in keeping this argument in the realm of debate instead of where it has gone, and your motives are clearly not debate. Of all the contradictions you've relied upon it is the ignorance of the Constitution for the United States of America that has been your most absurd contradiction. Indeed, you laughably ask if the Constitution grew on trees in a pathetic attempt to support your contention that the Constitution for the United States is law itself instead of simply just describing law. It is, of course, the Ninth Amendment in particular that undoes you on this. I've all ready pointed to the Ninth Amendment but flailing arms would be an accurate description of what you've been doing in this thread.

The contradiction, of course, is that you contend that legislatures "make" law and that if it has been legislated it is law, but the Ninth Amendment is an act of legislation and that act of legislation expressly prohibits government from denying and or disparaging rights that have not been legislated. On this issue, you have nothing to say, and understandably so since Wikipedia has nothing of intelligence to say on the matter as well.

Keep flailing your arms and stop periodically to pat your self on the back declaring victory in the midst of your defeat, if this makes you feel better. Were you to take these sort of arguments into a court of law in the United States, you'd be laughed out of court.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The contradiction, of course, is that you contend that legislatures "make" law and that if it has been legislated it is law, but the Ninth Amendment is an act of legislation and that act of legislation expressly prohibits government from denying and or disparaging rights that have not been legislated.

It bars denial of freedoms if the denial is based on the fact that certain rights are enumerated in the Constitution (but does not bar denial of freedoms if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution).
It is simply a principle that says what is not specifically allowed in the Constitution to be restricted should not be restricted by government law.

Of course this does not in any way mean that law comes from nature. Certainly even this amendment, as part of a supreme law, was created by people, not nature!
How can rights come from nature, when the law that specifies and defines what they are (so is ontologically above them) is manmade?

reply to post by Maslo

(but does not bar denial of freedoms if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution).

Name one enumeration of power listed in the Constitution for the United States of America that grants government the authority to bar freedom.

''Freedom'' is a subjective concept which can objectively be defined as: ''You have the freedom to do things which I personally believe in or tolerate you doing, but you don't have the freedom to do things which I don't personally believe in or am intolerant of you doing''.

The libertarian mantra runs along these lines, and is, consequently, complete garbage,

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
''Freedom'' is a subjective concept which can objectively be defined as: ''You have the freedom to do things which I personally believe in or tolerate you doing, but you don't have the freedom to do things which I don't personally believe in or am intolerant of you doing''.

The libertarian mantra runs along these lines, and is, consequently, complete garbage,

You have ridiculously declared a subjective thought as objective. Given your profound ignorance on what is subjective and what is objective, it only makes sense that you would use your wholly subjective bias to describe libertarian mantra.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You have ridiculously declared a subjective thought as objective. Given your profound ignorance on what is subjective and what is objective, it only makes sense that you would use your wholly subjective bias to describe libertarian mantra.

Behave yourself.

I have stated that every single subjectively defined concept of ''freedom'' can be objectively defined as: ''free to do what I believe/tolerate, and not free to do what I don't believe/don't tolerate''.

Now, if you would like to counter my objective analysis on subjective views on the subject then, please, have a go.

Good luck with that one.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


although i may disagree with you on matters of policy, and legislation. i think your responses are falling on deaf ears. clear, logical, crictical-thinking skills are not present in many of the posts here on ATS. your frustration, along with mine, is in the dismissive, and naive, remarks made by shallow thinkers. sometimes i have to leave for a day or two, just to keep myself from falling into the hole of the petty and vulgar.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

''free to do what I believe/tolerate, and not free to do what I don't believe/don't tolerate''.

This is not an objective definition, and is wholly based upon subjectivity. Subjectivity cannot be reasonably used to "objectively" define anything.

If you would like to argue that freedom can be subjectively defined as such I have no argument with that, but if you keep insisting that subjective thought functions as objective definitions, then it is you who needs to behave yourself. Ignorance is not best behavior, not even good behavior, it is bad behavior and this is why in this site we endeavor to deny ignorance.

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

although i may disagree with you on matters of policy, and legislation. i think your responses are falling on deaf ears. clear, logical, crictical-thinking skills are not present in many of the posts here on ATS. your frustration, along with mine, is in the dismissive, and naive, remarks made by shallow thinkers. sometimes i have to leave for a day or two, just to keep myself from falling into the hole of the petty and vulgar.

When you leave you are missed, and while you're here any effort you can make on behalf of critical thought and reason is more than greatly appreciated.

We do not have to agree on policy and legislative acts in order to remain critical in our thinking. While it is indeed a frustration, it is a necessity to keep fighting the good fight and not allow the weak of mind to insist their poorly thought out ideas are better than critical thought.

I have long argued that the greatest enemy to our rights is our own proclivity towards expedience. When it comes to freedom, going along to get along is not an option. Particularly when we are being asked to go along with illogical arguments that are clearly designed to dismiss the unalienable rights of all people.