The human rights

[coric]

Thanks for the "warning" I see your line that you want to remove any right, if there can be a hypothetical construction wherein you would need to use force to guarantee this right?

Well not remove it - it doesn't exist naturally.

It's not so hypothetical either, situations arise all the time.

Edit: Note the logic: You can not have a right that violates the rights of others, because the rights are for all. That is why they are called human rights (in general), not the right for person X and person Y but not person Z...

With this argument, you would need to abolish the right to property, which you explicitly listed. Or in your words, it would not exist. To guarantee this you need force and the threat of force. A takes a purse from the pocket of B, carefully trying to be as soft as possible. Yet B, if he notices, is allowed to tackle A, use force to take it back.
 I have never heard of anyone forced to teach, but pickpockets are stopped by violence everyday, and prisons all over the world are full of thieves.

Property, unlike most other human rights, even does discriminate between X and Z, as their amounts of property are usually different. Yet to the UN and many constitutions it is seen as a human right, and listed among them, and only hard communist states don't recognize it to some extent.

[1713506042]

1713506042

[1713506042]

1713506042

[spazzdla]

No longer does anyone have the right to protect themselves and their wealth with just force against those given unlimited power.

[Erdogan]

Thanks for the "warning" I see your line that you want to remove any right, if there can be a hypothetical construction wherein you would need to use force to guarantee this right?

Well not remove it - it doesn't exist naturally.

It's not so hypothetical either, situations arise all the time.

Edit: Note the logic: You can not have a right that violates the rights of others, because the rights are for all. That is why they are called human rights (in general), not the right for person X and person Y but not person Z...

With this argument, you would need to abolish the right to property, which you explicitly listed. Or in your words, it would not exist. To guarantee this you need force and the threat of force. A takes a purse from the pocket of B, carefully trying to be as soft as possible. Yet B, if he notices, is allowed to tackle A, use force to take it back.
 I have never heard of anyone forced to teach, but pickpockets are stopped by violence everyday, and prisons all over the world are full of thieves.

Property, unlike most other human rights, even does discriminate between X and Z, as their amounts of property are usually different. Yet to the UN and many constitutions it is seen as a human right, and listed among them, and only hard communist states don't recognize it to some extent.

You own yourself and the things you have rightfully acquired. You will need force to keep your things. No talking about amounts, they have to be different of course. If two persons have the same, and one of them makes or trades something, he might be better off. This is not a violation of rights. Stopping a thief is also not a violation. Putting them in prison - questionable.

[coric]

Such is the law, and with good reasons. Prison for non-violent crimes don't leave a good taste to me as well. But you argued that the right to education should be abolished because in an extreme case force could be necessary. Why this, if you waive this argument for the right to property, where the case is a common uccurence?

[Erdogan]

Such is the law, and with good reasons. Prison for non-violent crimes don't leave a good taste to me as well. But you argued that the right to education should be abolished because in an extreme case force could be necessary. Why this, if you waive this argument for the right to property, where the case is a common uccurence?

That one, as with other feel good rights, are constructed in the belief that it can come from nowhere, just because it is written, and it feels good. It is the same with shoes, you don't have the right to shoes, but the market can supply them easily. There is no shoe problem. And if there were, for instance in a very poor place, it would not solve the problem to make it a right. It would only serve to elevate some people above the others to administer the right, and make someone else pay, and make people freedomless regarding the shoe choice, and to waste resources, that is, making everyone less rich.

[seoincorporation]

You own yourself and your things.

You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.

You have the right to be left alone with your things.

Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.

If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.

You can do everything else as you please.

You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.

The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrKF9hgHMI

Where are your human rights when the police and the army kill 43 future school teachers...

Some countries live in savagery.

[Erdogan]

You own yourself and your things.

You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.

You have the right to be left alone with your things.

Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.

If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.

You can do everything else as you please.

You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.

The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrKF9hgHMI

Where are your human rights when the police and the army kill 43 future school teachers...

Some countries live in savagery.

Do you mean the mexicans should just let their rigths go, because of this?

[seoincorporation]

You own yourself and your things.

You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.

You have the right to be left alone with your things.

Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.

If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.

You can do everything else as you please.

You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.

The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrKF9hgHMI

Where are your human rights when the police and the army kill 43 future school teachers...

Some countries live in savagery.

Do you mean the mexicans should just let their rigths go, because of this?

I mean, if the government can easy take your life, that Human rights are nonsense words.

[TheButterZone]

You own yourself and your things.

You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.

You have the right to be left alone with your things.

Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.

If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.

You can do everything else as you please.

You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.

The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrKF9hgHMI

Where are your human rights when the police and the army kill 43 future school teachers...

Some countries live in savagery.

Do you mean the mexicans should just let their rigths go, because of this?

I mean, if the government can easy take your life, that Human rights are nonsense words.

This isn't rocket surgery. A government which bans effective self-defense (the prime human right) can democide with impunity.

[Erdogan]

You own yourself and your things.

You have the right to remain unharmed by others, not being pushed around, not being held capture.

You have the right to be left alone with your things.

Every human have these rights, consequently you can not trample on others' rights.

If your rights are violated, you have the right to defend yourself with great force.

You can do everything else as you please.

You can associate with others, but the agents of the association have no more right than you have as an individual. In the association, you have the same ownership of the consequences as you have as an individual.

The above means that there are lots of so called rights, also written in for instance the UN declaration of rights, that are not rights. You don't have the right to curl around the legs of people who use violence to have some spoils.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrKF9hgHMI

Where are your human rights when the police and the army kill 43 future school teachers...

Some countries live in savagery.

Do you mean the mexicans should just let their rigths go, because of this?

I mean, if the government can easy take your life, that Human rights are nonsense words.

That's why you have to focus on your rights, man.

[oblivi]

We are moving towards a society where no one owns nothing, so im not sure about your first statement. Open source, decentralized society, free as in freedoms society. It's the only way for a true futuristic society.

[Atdhe]

oblivi, i think you have a point, but still ownership will exist

only the entities who will own the assets will be completely different than the actual users of the assests or of the capital

good example are the offshore shell companies - everything that exists is owned (even externalities are privatised), but owner is irrelevant

[Erdogan]

You own yourself, you own the space around you, you own your ability to move around, you own your clothes, you own your reputation, you own the consequences of your actions, you own the reality you live in. Nobody should steal those things from you.

[Atdhe]

You own yourself -> wtf, is this some pathetic manifesto at revolution?
you own the space around you -> was already privatised...
you own your ability to move around -> really? cars on credit, highway tolls, parks sold to developers, private woods etc.
you own your clothes -> so far, until China produces the cheap shit and it is bought on credit most of the time... therefore you are not the owner
you own your reputation -> if reputation can be owned, then social network owners have it; but reputation does not fall into usus, fructus, abusus area
you own the consequences of your actions -> no, you just pay for them
you own the reality you live in -> people who believe they are Gods end in asylums
Nobody should steal those things from you. -> part of them is nothing that can be owned, part of them was already stolen/taken away/sold cheap and nobody gave a fuck if it was right or not

[Atdhe]

That's why you have to focus on your rights, man.

That is what the students did and here is how they ended.

Human rights is anice idea, which being chased, always causes big troubles for everyone. The world is a jungle and one has to fight for the power in order to survive. Human right activists are the ones who are eaten alive.

[Erdogan]

That's why you have to focus on your rights, man.

That is what the students did and here is how they ended.

Human rights is anice idea, which being chased, always causes big troubles for everyone. The world is a jungle and one has to fight for the power in order to survive. Human right activists are the ones who are eaten alive.

Yeah, slavery is good. Don't steal yourself, man.

[BrianM]

That's why you have to focus on your rights, man.

That is what the students did and here is how they ended.

Human rights is anice idea, which being chased, always causes big troubles for everyone. The world is a jungle and one has to fight for the power in order to survive. Human right activists are the ones who are eaten alive.

Yeah, slavery is good. Don't steal yourself, man.

Who is that "man" you are referring to?

[username18333]

“[R]ights” consist of those powers that are withheld from hierarchies. Liberty consists of not having to withhold them.

[botany]

That's why you have to focus on your rights, man.

That is what the students did and here is how they ended.

Human rights is anice idea, which being chased, always causes big troubles for everyone. The world is a jungle and one has to fight for the power in order to survive. Human right activists are the ones who are eaten alive.

The definition of human rights differs everywhere.
USA criticizes China on its Human Rights record. China criticizes the US on its record. 

[pungopete468]

I will never understand the aversion some people have to the existence of human rights...

Human rights is a rational decision made by the individual who chooses to exercise a right. Many governments acknowledge the existence of human rights and form their legal systems around them, others don't.

Just because you have a right doesn't mean another won't take it away or try to. Human rights is a model for people living in a society which is supposed to help rationalize the actions of an individual to other rational people after that individual has chosen to exercise their human right. Human rights is as simple as right and wrong. Murdering or stealing are both wrong, defending life or protecting your valuables is right...

The OP is correct, there are universal human rights and it doesn't matter if you agree or not. It makes no difference whether the law recognizes these rights or whether a persons rights are violated. Hypothetically, if an intruder is strangling your mother, or abducting your child, or committing any other forcible felony, you have a natural human right to harm or even kill them on the spot if it's the fastest way to end that situation. If you have the ability to stop these situations and you choose not to act resulting in the death of a loved one, a rational person would suffer and live in deep regret that they didn't choose to act. "Right" and "wrong" at work again...

If there are consequences to your decision to act and you save the life of a loved one but go to prison for it, then it doesn't mean you didn't have the right to do what you did; it only means that your rights are being forcibly violated. A rational person wouldn't regret saving the life of a loved one, even in the face of prison. They would likely be more upset that they are being penalized for doing the "right" thing...

The world doesn't owe you a living, if people don't exercise rights for fear of retribution then they will lose them or never even realize them. If people don't choose to assert the existence of human rights then they choose to live as property under the command of other "superior humans" who determine their fates.

Human rights exist just the same as the words I type here. Before I typed them they existed in my mind, and a rational person would agree that other people have thoughts too. I chose to exercise my thoughts just as one would choose to exercise a human right.