The Source of Rights

[F1fan]

so other then guns any other specific types of property we don’t have a right to? Or do all the powers of the universe conspire to reject guns?

Would you still want your guns if society was completely following your religious ideal? If everyone obeyed God to your way of thinking, would you still need a gun to kill other people?

If I don’t have a right I can’t pass it on. The government can only rightfully act as my agent in the things I have the right to do. If I don’t have the right I can’t pass it onto another.

But individual rights aren't about what people want. They are about how individuals in a society can best thrive by accounting for flaws and virtues.

None of this has anything to do with social contacts.

You've never heard of social contract theory?

 

[fantome profane]

so other then guns any other specific types of property we don’t have a right to?

Anthrax. Uranium. Heroin.

A moment of thought should be sufficient to realize that there are lots of items that people do not have a fundamental right to possess. The right to properly obviously does not mean you can own anything that exists.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Jefferson took actions many times. In a political system of elected persons if you don't have enough votes you lose. It is greatly inaccurate to pretend he did not act.

He did more favors to the South and preserving slavery than he did end it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Natural rights are those rights which exist if there was no government. There is some debate on the finer details. Generally these are summed up as life, liberty and property. A look over the UDHR.

Article 1 — Right To Equality. We all have the same rights.
Article 2 — Freedom From Discrimination. The government treats us each as a person not as group which might have special rights or be punished.
Article 3 — Right to Security of Person
Article 4 — Freedom from Slavery
Article 5 — Freedom From Inhumane Treatment
Article 6 — Right To Legal Recognition
Article 7 — Right To Equality Before the Law (really a restating of item 2)
Article 8 — Right To Remedy by Competent Tribunal
Article 9 — Freedom From Arbitrary Legal Prosecution
Article 10 — Right To Fair Public Hearing
Article 11 — Right To Be Considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Article 12 — Freedom From Interference (I should be free to live my life as I see fit without limits, except as to respecting the rights of others. This includes my freedom to enter into a contract).
Article 13 — Right To Free Movement
Article 14 — Right to Asylum From Prosecution (this one is a bit gray as it demands actions from other governments).
Article 15 — Right To A Nationality (This one also is gray, you are a person and you live in a place these are natural rights, but the origination of government is not)
Article 16 — Right To Marriage
Article 17 — Right To Own Property (This one is vital yet one of the most ignored by governments)
Article 18 — Freedom Of Belief (is the US this one got really abused under FDR and LBJ it is not just the right to believe hidden in the closet).
Article 19 — Freedom Of Speech (I think one can justly limit the freedom to threaten another, but the recent efforts to stop "disinformation" AKA anything the ruling party does not want to be said are a violation of this.
Article 20 — Right To Peaceful Assembly and Association. Both BLM and the Jan 6 protests started peaceful and crossed the line.
Article 21 — Right To Participate In Government

With few limits the above are consistent with natural rights. We also see the UN going off the rails and adding in a lot of stuff that is not natural rights, and are often when attempted a violation of those rights. Much of the following is found not in nature, but in the ratings of Marx.

Article 22 — Right To Social Security. This is not a natural right, this is a requirement that the government violate the non establishment clause and the rights of property to give what person A worked for to person B.

Article 23 — Right To Desirable Employment. While people need the freedom to work the details outlined are dangerous. “Equal pay for equal work" is a nice tag line, but how do you enforce it without destroying freedom, privacy and the right to contract? Who is to say which amount of work or quality of work is equal to another? Would not I as the owner have the right to give more money to my son if I wish? Should I not be free to pay more to the worker whose daughter has cancer if I desire? They might refuse a gift, but accept a raise. Now the government enforcing a contract. They could compel me the owner to pay you for the work you did at the rate I agreed to pay.

Article 24 — Right To Rest. Yes take a break, but holidays with pay is not a natural right.

Article 25 — Right To Adequate Living Standard. No, No and No. Again like item 22 this require the governments to violate other rights. Modern versions of this at least in the US like punishing people who want to live off the grid are harmful to the rights of the people. If I want to live like my ancestors without power and running water that is my choice (I personally like those things, but it's my call). Now if your life style actually harms the rights of others such as trespassing on their property the government could deal with that issue.

Article 26 — Right To Education. Same. Education matters, but its not the government job to provide it. They should simply ban people from trying to stop it.

Article 27 — Right To Participate in and Enjoy the Culture of One’s Community (Could be creativity abused but the notion is valid)

Article 28 — Right To Realization of This Declaration

Article 29 — Duties To Community (Yes we have duties and this does not mean the community can bulldoze our rights.)

Article 30 — Freedom From Interference in Above Rights (same as 29)


When the line is crossed from protecting the rights I have naturally as a person to the creating entitlements, the micromanaging my life etc. We have a problem.When the government is the one denying me my rights the system I can appeal to is the same one that is harming me and the odds of my appeal working are very low.

Seeing how you say that rights come from God, I trust that you have some sort of documentation from God that backs up which rights you've decided are important and which ones you dismiss.

 

[epronovost]

You are projecting an awful lot there.

Are implying that I wish to slaughter the entire population of some nebulous and unmentioned enemy nation of mine and then keep a virgin teenage girl of such nation as my wife? If so that's pretty ****ed up.

Are you denying that the Bible contains such an instruction? It clearly does in Numbers and in Deuteronomy it contains the instruction to massacres everything that lives sparing no one for the purpose of sex slavery among an enemy nation of Israel. Those passages describe instruction to commit mass murder, rape and genocide.

 

[Truth in love]

Are implying that I wish to slaughter the entire population of some nebulous and unmentioned enemy nation of mine and then keep a virgin teenage girl of such nation as my wife? If so that's pretty ****ed up.

Are you denying that the Bible contains such an instruction? It clearly does in Numbers and in Deuteronomy it contains the instruction to massacres everything that lives sparing no one for the purpose of sex slavery among an enemy nation of Israel. Those passages describe instruction to commit mass murder, rape and genocide.

please cite passages where sex slavery is endorsed.

 

[epronovost]

please cite passages where sex slavery is endorsed.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

The bolding is mine and it clearly condemns those virgin girls to be kept as sex slaves. There are numerous mention of sexual slavery in the Bible. A man can even sell his own daughter into slavery to pay off debts for example.

 

[Truth in love]

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

The bolding is mine and it clearly condemns those virgin girls to be kept as sex slaves. There are numerous mention of sexual slavery in the Bible. A man can even sell his own daughter into slavery to pay off debts for example.

No it really does not. It keeps them alive with the option to marry.

I get your not happy with wide spread wars and death. Fair enough they don't set well with some of our modern day vales. But the above verse is not saying these women will be sex slaves.

 

[epronovost]

No it really does not. It keeps them alive with the option to marry.

Not really no. It places them, as I mentioned before in the following situation: she has the "choice" between sexual slavery, death or, maybe if she's lucky, homelessness and errancy. There is no exchange of free, informed consent between the two potential spouse and considering the situation the girl is in; that is in enemy land, without family, without friends, without any property to her name. It's basically pointing a gun to a girl's head and asking her to choose between almost certain death or a life as a sexual slave.

Note that the passage doesn't grant to soldiers the right to take them as wives, but to simply take them for themselves. That could indeed mean force them into marriage (a form of sexual slavery), it could mean also slavery or even sexual slavery two things that are perfectly legal in Hebrew society at that time.

I get it, you like the Bible and it's very important to you to take it very literally and consider it as an actual credible recounting of history as well as a great source for morality, but you are making a Thomas Jefferson out of you there; talking a big game about morality all the while supporting atrocities.

 

[Heyo]

It’s not a question of who!has the force,but would it be right?

I think you are mistaking "having a right" for "being right". Those are two very different things.

 

[Truth in love]

Not really no. It places them, as I mentioned before in the following situation: she has the "choice" between sexual slavery, death or, maybe if she's lucky, homelessness and errancy. There is no exchange of free, informed consent between the two potential spouse and considering the situation the girl is in; that is in enemy land, without family, without friends, without any property to her name. It's basically pointing a gun to a girl's head and asking her to choose between almost certain death or a life as a sexual slave.

Note that the passage doesn't grant to soldiers the right to take them as wives, but to simply take them for themselves. That could indeed mean force them into marriage (a form of sexual slavery), it could mean also slavery or even sexual slavery two things that are perfectly legal in Hebrew society at that time.

I get it, you like the Bible and it's very important to you to take it very literally and consider it as an actual credible recounting of history as well as a great source for morality, but you are making a Thomas Jefferson out of you there; talking a big game about morality all the while supporting atrocities.

Do you have documents showing that the Israelites at that time allowed for sex slaves? Forced marriages? Its a very brief statement in an old text. Your projecting a worse case scenario onto it. There was some "slavery" very different from our stereotypes, it ran a lot more like indentured servitude with a time limit and strict rules the master had to follow.

 

[epronovost]

Do you have documents showing that the Israelites at that time allowed for sex slaves? Forced marriages? Its a very brief statement in an old text. Your projecting a worse case scenario onto it.

There is several mention in the Bible of handmaids and concubine who serve as sexual slaves in the Bible. As for forced marriage, nowhere in the Bible is there any mention that for a marriage contract to take effect it requires the explicit, free and inform consent of the bride, only of her father and in the case of women captured by Hebrews from foreign nation, there is no father in the picture and women don't need to consent either (though a man must give a month to the bride-to-be to mourn before he can marry her). That makes a marriage forced, especially if even if she was afforded a say, she would be severely harmed by declining thus removing all freedom from her capacity to consent.

There was some "slavery" very different from our stereotypes, it ran a lot more like indentured servitude with a time limit and strict rules the master had to follow.

Indentured servitude was indeed more common among Ancient Hebrew than outright slavery, but note that the time limit only applies to male slaves.

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

As you can see in this passage of Exodus. Women are afforded far less protection from slavery than men are.

 

[Truth in love]

There is several mention in the Bible of handmaids and concubine who serve as sexual slaves in the Bible. As for forced marriage, nowhere in the Bible is there any mention that for a marriage contract to take effect it requires the explicit, free and inform consent of the bride, only of her father and in the case of women captured by Hebrews from foreign nation, there is no father in the picture and women don't need to consent either (though a man must give a month to the bride-to-be to mourn before he can marry her). That makes a marriage forced, especially if even if she was afforded a say, she would be severely harmed by declining thus removing all freedom from her capacity to consent.



Indentured servitude was indeed more common among Ancient Hebrew than outright slavery, but note that the time limit only applies to male slaves.

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

As you can see in this passage of Exodus. Women are afforded far less protection from slavery than men are.

Concubines in Israel were wives with lower social status. Not slaves.
We have limited information on consent for marriages. However this does not equal slavery.
I'm not going to argue that their customs were super equal, but there is a big gap between this and sex slavery.

 

[epronovost]

Concubines in Israel were wives with lower social status. Not slaves.
We have limited information on consent for marriages. However this does not equal slavery.
I'm not going to argue that their customs were super equal, but there is a big gap between this and sex slavery.

Considering that a man could legally beat his wife and had control over her; a woman living in a man's household with even less legal protection than his wife is to all end and purpose in sexual slavery. She's a whore with room and board and with a single client and very little ability to leave. Note that these are the mentioned ways to acquire a concubine:

1) A man sold you his daughter. Emphasis on the words "sold"
2) She's a non-Hebrew woman who was captured during a war. (so kidnapping an women from an enemy nation or slaughtering her family and taking her captive)
3) Purchased as slave.
4) A bonded women (so the slightly different indentured servitude that lasts all of her life)

 

[Truth in love]

Considering that a man could legally beat his wife and had control over her; a woman living in a man's household with even less legal protection than his wife is to all end and purpose in sexual slavery. She's a whore with room and board and with a single client and very little ability to leave. Note that these are the mentioned ways to acquire a concubine:

1) A man sold you his daughter. Emphasis on the words "sold"
2) She's a non-Hebrew woman who was captured during a war. (so kidnapping an women from an enemy nation or slaughtering her family and taking her captive)
3) Purchased as slave.
4) A bonded women (so the slightly different indentured servitude that lasts all of her life)

seriously which nation prior to the mid 1800’s had any serious protections for women from her husband?

it’s not like someone captured in a war was going from a 9-5 job to the stocks.
their reality was likely not that different.

Now if can provide actual references for the accusations great, but mostly what I here is an attack on culture for the crime of not fitting your personal views. (Still not seeing sex slavery)

 

[epronovost]

seriously which nation prior to the mid 1800’s had any serious protections for women from her husband?

Precisely, human rights were denied to women until women managed to claim them, bit by bit. It was and still is a arduous and long fight and the various commands of gods seldom were of any help in that direction.

PS: you would have to go within largely matriarchal ancient societies to see women have more comparable protection to what women enjoy today. In some other time and places, things, while still bad for women, were better than in Ancient Hebrew societies. In Germanic and medieval societies, women enjoyed more liberties and protection than in the kingdom of Israel for example.

it’s not like someone captured in a war was going from a 9-5 job to the stocks.
their reality was likely not that different.

Actually yes, that's precisely what it looked like. One day she was a teenage girl living at home waiting for her father to provide her a good husband and start her life as a mother and farmer, artisan or trader (whichever was the occupation she would assist her husband in doing). Then, everybody you knew has died and a man has captured you, can sell you to his friends as he please and force you into marriage.

PS: when I say sexual slavery I mean, being in the condition of a slave for the purpose of providing sexual services (so concubines are all sex slaves since they are slaves who serve that precise purpose) or slaves who so happen to be used for sexual gratification in addition to whatever duty they are supposed to execute so a handmaid that the master beds once in a while is a sex slave too.

 

[Truth in love]

Precisely, human rights were denied to women until women managed to claim them, bit by bit. It was and still is a arduous and long fight and the various commands of gods seldom were of any help in that direction.

PS: you would have to go within largely matriarchal ancient societies to see women have more comparable protection to what women enjoy today. In some other time and places, things, while still bad for women, were better than in Ancient Hebrew societies. In Germanic and medieval societies, women enjoyed more liberties and protection than in the kingdom of Israel for example.



Actually yes, that's precisely what it looked like. One day she was a teenage girl living at home waiting for her father to provide her a good husband and start her life as a mother and farmer, artisan or trader (whichever was the occupation she would assist her husband in doing). Then, everybody you knew has died and a man has captured you, can sell you to his friends as he please and force you into marriage.

PS: when I say sexual slavery I mean, being in the condition of a slave for the purpose of providing sexual services (so concubines are all sex slaves since they are slaves who serve that precise purpose) or slaves who so happen to be used for sexual gratification in addition to whatever duty they are supposed to execute so a handmaid that the master beds once in a while is a sex slave too.

I’m sorry but your unsupported insults of Israel are not fact based.
You are correct that many times women have been poorly treated, but pretty much everything else you keep repeating is not supported.

 

[epronovost]

I’m sorry but your unsupported insults of Israel are not fact based.
You are correct that many times women have been poorly treated, but pretty much everything else you keep repeating is not supported.

How is it not unsupported. I literally quoted you a passage that talks about a father selling his own daughter into slavery to a man and another one where captive teenage girls are to be kept for whatever purpose by their captor. That's sexual slavery and so is forced marriage and concubinage. These are all practices that were legal in Ancient Israel. It was a nation in which slavery was legal and a strongly patriarchal society too. When you combine both of these traits, you inevitably get a variety of forms of sexual slavery.

 

[Heyo]

How is it not unsupported. I literally quoted you a passage that talks about a father selling his own daughter into slavery to a man and another one where captive teenage girls are to be kept for whatever purpose by their captor. That's sexual slavery and so is forced marriage and concubinage. These are all practices that were legal in Ancient Israel. It was a nation in which slavery was legal and a strongly patriarchal society too. When you combine both of these traits, you inevitably get a variety of forms of sexual slavery.

I don't know who is confusing fact and fiction now, you or @Truth in love. I thought you two had agreed that the bible is not historical fact? So, are you talking about ancient Israel (fact) or biblical Israel (fiction)?

 

[epronovost]

I don't know who is confusing fact and fiction now, you or @Truth in love. I thought you two had agreed that the bible is not historical fact? So, are you talking about ancient Israel (fact) or biblical Israel (fiction)?

Well you could say both in that case. It's absolutely true that Ancient Israel (fact) had slaves, including sex slaves and so did biblical Israel (fiction). No matter where and how you want to look at it, it's simply true either way.