YOU have NO RIGHTS!

[redarmy11]

You have no right to property ownership. If the government wishes to build an airport on your property, it will dispossess you.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17:
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

You have no inherent right to freedom. If the government feels it convenient, it can detain you without charge or trial (eg. Guantanamo).

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 9:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

You have no right to seek restitution for harm inflicted upon you. If the individual or corporation who inflicted harm upon you has money and connections, you will never get justice.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 6:
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

These are your inalienable rights. Enforcing them is another matter.

 

[mountainhare]

redarmy:

These are your inalienable rights. Enforcing them is another matter.

How can they be 'rights', if they are not enforced?

While a law may be written a paper, it doesn't exist until it is consistently and systematically enforced. The very fact that governments can quite easily deny us our 'rights' tells me that we have no rights to begin with.

 

[redarmy11]

redarmy:

How can they be 'rights', if they are not enforced?

While a law may be written a paper, it doesn't exist until it is consistently and systematically enforced. The very fact that governments can quite easily deny us our 'rights' tells me that we have no rights to begin with.

If your government isn't recognising the rights that an earlier incarnation of the goverment has signed up to, this is a violation. I presume you are American? This gives you additional rights over and above the rights of other peoples. Specifically, you have the right to bear arms.

 

[Prince_James]

Redarmy11:

Yet again I stress that a nature of a right is that it is not subject to the whims of a government's institution of it. That is to say, if we have any rights, it is only those rights which have been granted to us by nature, and whether the government respects such natural rights or not is irrelevant. So to say the UN has given us any rights is wrong, they simply do not stand in opposition to our exercise of said rights.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Yes. This is more of a semantic debate. A "right" is something guaranteed and conferred by a society. It has no meaning outside of a society. The concept of "innate" rights is just a globally accepted extension of this.

ah, someone understands me........ (must inform my shrink...change of plan)

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Actually, democratic government is built on a social contract. People agree to surrender certain freedoms in exchange for certain services provided by the government. The government has obligations under this arrangement, just as the people have obligations.

I have neither seen nor signed any agreement, and I did not vote until I was 18 (no right to do so) thus my rights as assigned by the governement are 100% at discretion of government. I as a voter remain powerless in any decisions they make regarding any 'honourary' right's.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Can't find info on which nations subscribe to this. Did read that the Soviet bloc (as of 1948), Saudi Arabia and South Africa abstained. Most other nations ratified it.

Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Human rights are not being upheld though, and are citizens educated in these rights at school or in any other media? Hmm what is this re equal pay for all regardless of sex/age/religion, Hm? Well that is NOT upheld and there are many others, so again, discretionary rights, honourary rights....any way point is we have 'no rights' . We are granted certain freedoms that can be removed, ignored, altered, they can be defended if you're BIG enough, but the poor uneducated man cannot defend diddly squat.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Now, you are of the opinion that a governmental entity can rob us of even this right, and in so far as clearly they can, you are right. But as to whether they'd be just in doing so, or whether we'd not still have a -right- which had simply been trod upon, is a matter all together different.

.

If it was a 'right' nothing could tread on it, we have no rights.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

redarmy:

How can they be 'rights', if they are not enforced?

While a law may be written a paper, it doesn't exist until it is consistently and systematically enforced. The very fact that governments can quite easily deny us our 'rights' tells me that we have no rights to begin with.

My point exactly

Controversial thought just popped into my head:

Belief you have 'rights' is akin to blind faith

 

[redarmy11]

I have neither seen nor signed any agreement, and I did not vote until I was 18 (no right to do so) thus my rights as assigned by the governement are 100% at discretion of government. I as a voter remain powerless in any decisions they make regarding any 'honourary' right's.

Prince James: What are our 'natural' rights? I don't think we have any. Our rights can only come through the law. Thus, as of 1948, we do have inviolable rights from birth - 'given' to us not by the UN but by us, the people of the Earth, as represented by the UN.

ToR: You don't need to sign anything. Your forefathers took care of that for you. Also human rights, as implemented in the Declaration, transcend the actions of any one government or individual:

Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

If you feel that the rights enshrined in the Declaration aren't being upheld, the national law courts aren't the only possible recourse. Take your complaint to the European Court or a human rights watch organisation, eg Amnesty International.

PS The fact that certain rights aren't being upheld doesn't take away the facts that they are lawful rights. Powerful people have the means to deny weaker people all kinds of things - that's the problem.

 

[leopold]

in america we have the right to protest our governments actions.
we have the right to effect political change with whatever means is necessary.
we have the right to leave where we are for something better.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Wrong. Innate rights are an illusion. The rights you fight and die for are very real and worthwhile having.

If I had any' rights' they could not be taken or threatened in any way.

Thus there are NO rights. Just faith that a protective clause will be upheld and if it is not upheld my further faith that fighting for the recognition of that protective clause will in some way assist me in my plight.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

in america we have the right to protest our governments actions.
we have the right to effect political change with whatever means is necessary.
we have the right to leave where we are for something better.

Your government does not promise to act in accordance with your requests for change, thus granting you a right to say anything is meaningless

I ToR grant YOU the right to post smilies in response to me

Meanwhile anyone who gets on the nerves of the 'chiefs' in America your governement/other responds with assinations...thus rights are not rights, just an illusion

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

PS The fact that certain rights aren't being upheld doesn't take away the facts that they are lawful rights. Powerful people have the means to deny weaker people all kinds of things - that's the problem.

No that's not the problem, the problem is peoples belief that they have these rights...only if it suits will these freedoms be upheld and if it doesn't ? Well there a bazillion examples of human rights not being upheld.

People stepping on the wrong toes, being silenced, having family and livelihoods threatened.

 

[leopold]

Your government does not promise to act in accordance with your requests for change, thus granting you a right to say anything is meaningless

wrong.
if the US government is oppressing the masses then they have every right in the world to go up there and shoot every one of them and create a new government.

 

[Prince_James]

Redarmy11:

"Prince James: What are our 'natural' rights? I don't think we have any. Our rights can only come through the law. Thus, as of 1948, we do have inviolable rights from birth - 'given' to us not by the UN but by us, the people of the Earth, as represented by the UN."

On the second page of this thread, in a reply to Theory of Relativity, I present my viewpoint of what is rightfully to be considered a right and why it is not for governments or any other organization to bequeath us such.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

wrong.
if the US government is oppressing the masses then they have every right in the world to go up there and shoot every one of them and create a new government.

leo, no country dare take arms against America let alone a handful of revolutionaries. The arsenal hardly compares. Also if anyone got wind of an upstart plotting a revolution they'd be assinated.

So again, it is easy to grant this alleged 'right' as it is 100% ineffective, meaningless.

 

[redarmy11]

You have the right. You don't have the means of enforcing that right.

Now drop it!

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

You have the right. You don't have the means of enforcing that right.

Now drop it!

It is not a right if you can't enforce it and that is my point...it is merely an illusion, a promise of something that may or may not exist at the discretion of your government.

Pereceived rights keep the little people happy, keeps us 'peasants' under control. While we believe we are being 'looked' after, we will allow our government to reign over us.

 

[DJ Erock]

What you're trying to do ToR, is to say that a government can take away your rights, and there is little you can do about it. You're then trying to redefine the word 'right' to suit your idea.

From dictionary.com
"n.
That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.

Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle.
A just or legal claim or title."


I think that people have every right, to do anything. People set up government as a way to trade in certian rights. The rights that people are ok with witholding from themselves are those that they wouldn't someone else to exercise on them. For example, I have the right to murder someone, but I wouldn't want to be murdered by someone else. So I'm ok with the government saying that I cannot exercies that right, and no one can exercise on it upon me. So while that right still exists, we agree not to exercise it under threat of punishment, but also under benefit of care.