#1. Aren't things like the right to safety, the right to live in a clean environment, the right to fair competition, and the right to make a decent wage individual rights?
No. You do not have
rights to such things. If you did this would constitute the guarantee of a specific outcome, rather than a right to
action. Guarantees of outcomes and claims to goods and services are not natural rights at all, for if they were they would justify enslaving and taking from others in order to fulfill the "rights" without the consent of those producing the necessary efforts.
If this is true, then why wouldn't the "right to have decent healthcare" be included here too...after all I think it is a safety issue.
You don't have a "right to healthcare." What is a doctor if not someone who takes the time and the trouble to become educated in order to trade his skill for value like any other person who offers a good or service for sale? You no more own the doctor's life and time than you own that of the retailer or the manufacturer.
You have the right to try and extend your life provided you violate no one else's rights in so doing. You have the right to
try to survive. Neither of these rights constitutes the
guarantee of continued life.
Our Individual survival relies on the rest of the species. This may not be true with all organisims, but it IS true with humans. We has humans would have been dead long ago without each other. True or not?
You are identifying the reason that it is in our interests to cooperate with each other
for mutual benefit. Mutual gain is the reason any rational group of human beings choose to work with one another. Working towards a shared goal does not constitute the claim of one person (or group) on another person (or group) without consent.
#3. SHOULD corporations, special interests, and other such collections of individuals have the same rights as an individual as defined by government?
A corporation is a legal fiction; while those who comprise it can do certain things in its name (own property, for example), it should not and cannot have the same
rights as does an individual.
A "special interest" is simply a group of individuls who have gathered together to lobby their government for whatever reason; we are all part of various "special interest groups" because we all believe in certain things and oppose (or support) certain laws.
Only mortal individuals have
rights.
#4. This is directed at Phil....Phil, what kind of society do you envision....or rather what social/governmental structure do you think would work the best?
I envision a free society -- a Constitutional Republic, the role of whose government is strictly defined, whose laws protect the natural rights of the individual. This was the basis for the United States.
Well it wasn't a waste of my time, nor was Athena a liar as far as I can tell (that is what you mean by 'intellectually dishonest' isn't it Phil?).
Making bizarre conclusions like, "You must be against child rape laws, then" is an intellectually dishonest attempt to divert the discussion to some variation of, "You must be a bad person for holding the opinions you hold." It's a ploy, much as it would be a ploy if I said, "Jonathan, given what I know of you, you must support state protection of child molesters."
If the purpose of this board is for you to spout your ideas and for us to listen and agree, then, yes it is a waste of our time.
You're missing the point (as usual).
Otherwise I find the tone patronising to say the least.
Yes, Jonathan, but let us not forget that you find the use of your own name somehow offensive. Try not to read too much into others' text.
Phil has stated
Quote:
Democracy is simply majority (mob) rule.
He has stated that an elite (rather than elected) government should decide what is reasonable.
That is not correct. I have stated that there exist certain natural rights that must be protected regardless of the willingness of the majority to infringe on them. This is not the same as wishing for some sort of Platonic state in which elitists ignore the will of the people.
He seems to think he is reasonable. Thus it is not 'intellectually dishonest' to ask what he thinks of a certain situation.
No, but it is intellectually dishonest to use emotionally charged rhetoric like, "You must oppose child rape laws" in order to imply that your opponent would hold such a disgusting view.
Neither is it off topic. The only mistake Athena makes is to assume that Phil believes children of eight have any rights at all.
The appropriate way to word the query would have been something along the lines of, "But what about minors? Do they have rights and, if so, are they the same as those of adults?"
You are born with the inalienable property right to you.
He also states that you belong to no-one. Elsewhere he has stated that a person gives up their inalienable right to their person when they commit a crime which infringes on another rights.
If you'd read the piece in question you'd know that I also devoted considerable time to the sources of your rights -- among them your capacity to
reason and the implications of choosing to use that faculty as a rational human being. As minors lack the capacity to reason, their parents or guardians are responsible for certain aspects of their lives and their decision-making processes until such time as those children
can make such decisions.
This does not, however, make children the "property" of their parents -- for their parents still cannot sell them into slavery or physically abuse them. (If they do, the parents have violated the children's ultimate, inalienable property right to themselves and will be punished for it in a rational society.)
Children of course infringe on others rights pretty much all of the time.
This is a strange conclusion; if you mean they infringe on the property rights of their parents, you are mistaken given that the parents have chosen to have the children in the first place. If you mean children infringe on others' property rights you are likewise mistaken; my neighbors can no more drop off their kids to live with me than I can wander into their living room and watch their television without their permission.
So do children have rights? If they belong to non-one they do not belong to their parents, so this is not a question of the parent's rights. It is a question of the child's rights.
Children have certain rights from birth but lack full rights because they lack the capacity to reason as adults. They are the
responsibility of their parents, but no the
property of their parents. Parents accept this responsibility when they choose to produce those children.
Worthy of debate yes, but Phil's 'reasonable man' must know or it cannot be a 'rational' debate. Either the child has inalienable rights which can only be alienated from him when he does 'wrong' or he has no 'inate rights' until he reaches a certain age.
This does not follow; you are born with certain rights and your ability to reason confers certain others.
Thus the queston is valid. It still has not been answered satisfactorily.
Yes, it has.
As to whether such emotionally loaded questions have validity I can only quote Phil Elmore again. Being a 'reasonable man' (please read 'irony' not 'intellectual dishonesty') he seems to think the technique is valid
Please, Jonathan, keep your bitterness to yourself or this conversation will devolve yet again into a bout of pointless bickering. There is a substantive difference between identifying the implications of a philosophy (correctly) and posting some variation on the theme of, "You must be a bad person for having your opinion."
I understand you are frustrated, but do try to keep your input on topic and productive.
