The thing with rights is that they are indeed a social contract, and we naturally tend to recognise the validity of them as we are social creatures. No-one wants to be exploited or treated unfairly, so we naturally wish to codify these feelings as rights, or indeed as laws. Unfortunately, the thing with rights is that they exist only as long as they are recognised by the other person. You have the right not to get mugged, but tell that to the mugger. You therefore have to be able to enforce your rights for them to be effective - whether that enforcement comes through your own personal assertion of your rights, through the law and it's officers or through the judiciary or some other mechanism. This is why democracy is so popular - even though it does not always work too well, it at least gives the average person the (illusion of the..?) ability to ensure that their perceived rights are protected. What annoys me at present is the number of people who complain that their rights are being infringed (for example the neighbour who plays loud music at 2am claiming it is his right to do so) without regard to those around them (his neighbours who want to sleep) and their rights. The concept of rights as a social contract seems to have passed some people by and become to them a tool with which to deny any such form of social obligation.
yes well said, Lurch Grace and virtue go a long way.. You cant write those things down, and force everyone to adhere can you? They must be learnt with an open heart and mind. Does the current social construct induce or block/spoil this kind of development. I am not a pessimist, but looking back over history I think having niggling worries about our current state of civilisation is a little justified. That is not to say there is no good honest people partaking in government, just they are overburdened by beurocratic restraint and inneficiency and too much PC, aswell as having to deal with more malignant forces getting in the way. (those that would uphold the status quo out of self interest). eg. The Illuminati started out with good intentions, I am not so sure that they have not been corrupted by their power. I don't know if there is any fix for this human ailment(+our egotistical desire for more, more and progress- progress is good but not at the expense of quality..Many past civilisations have gone to dust and we have a long way to fall.. The powers that be also have a way of obscuring truth to uphold our 'matrix' like existance, it is expedient and makes the masses easier to control. As most Americans will tell you if the right to bear arms is lost, you really are at the mercy of control to a 'higher authority', and a form of 'control' despite the question of social responsability it poses. That's were a swift hand comes in :Angel: My answer is encourage everyone study MA together from a young age And to introduce lessons in 'understanding' in classrooms I spent the majority of my school day looking out the window trying to understand, and I am still a dreamer.. -extracted from 'song of mind' Still I am optimistic, call me a fool Below is an extract from the this excellent taoist web resource http://www.panlatrevo.com/texts/chuangtzu/ Originally posted by Gerard. wise words indeed.
Geo, usually I agree with what you have to say, but you are on a rant and I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense. The Constitution is working out just fine, as is the right to bear arms. Many civilizations have risen and fallen, but none has ever even come close to the power that national and international governments have now. Some politicians are chalatans and some are crusaders and others are pragmatists- like everywhere else in the world. I don't think you're really in a position to criticize the US generally about anything relating to human rights. Ego? The Illuminati? As for human rights, see what the UN has to say about them. Or other thinkers, like Lincoln, Martin Luther King, or the Founding Fathers of the US.
Amen brother. When something as "sacred" as the constitution is bastardized by the supreme court and politicians use it like a club to beat down anyone who doesn't like their interpretation of it, our country has gone down the wrong road. We have no freedom of speech, when protestors are arrested and jailed for no reason, when protestors are prevented from being seen because our "president" doesn't like them, when librarians are forced to turn over records because of the "Patriot Act" we have no freedom. The new patriot act will allow the FBI to do searches without court orders, without letting the searchee know their home has been invaded. Computers can be seized w/o reasons being given, magazine articles censored because the content is controversial. School children in elementary school given questionaires w/o parents knowledge or permission on their parents "lifestyle" under the guise of sociology here in Wisconsin. Folks, our civil rights are being eroded under the guise of this "Patriot Act" and we're no safer than we were before 911 because of the open borders with Mexico. The government can look at your bank accounts, your library and movie history, your home computer and your mail w/o a court order now. I think that under the flag of security, we're really getting into a lot of trouble.
I don't live in the United States, I live in Canada. As for the constitution... it's working great for me. That is a very very strange notion. I'm just going to leave it at that, because I could ramble on about that quote for a long time, but I'm sure you'd just mentally brush it aside with some equally strange logic.
I'm sure Canada's great, sounds cool from what I hear. I have nothing against the constitution. If history teaches us anything it is to be vigilant. As for your second comment, well - you've obviously not been on the receiving end have you (or have knowledge of those that have) - there's plenty of instances were agreement/contracts - written or otherwise are broken - are you that naive?. I could throw up a bunch of examples for you. But perhaps its best to leave it there.
Well that's why we have a little something known as contract law, and don't reply with, contract law is bogus, it doesn't protect you... yes, yes it does for the most part. So what do you propose in place of it, everybody agree via a handshake? That would sure establish a greater deal of security
Oh cuchy, cuchy. Yes it was a bit of a rant admitidly. I didn't mean to come off pointing at any particular country, but as the constitution was mentioned, the US came into it. Don't get me wrong I love American ideals/people it can be one of the most honest and open places in the world, but it also has its ills like a lot places. You know there is some parts of the world were this sort of thing feels very far away, or its easy to shut our eyes, and say "let 'em get on with it, as long as I'm allright". How goes it down Gotham way? - hunky dory, by the sounds of it. Yes my post was a tad on the negative side, but judjing from Kwajmans post I am not the only one who feels a lot of stuff is pretty messed up.(cheers for the back up Kwaj) There is good & bad - I realize that. I decided to focus on the crap. As for powerful groups like I mentioned as well as the Bilderberg group - hmm a bunch of powerful people meeting up, and possibly deciding things amongst themselves - nothing new I know, and you could argue - they are entitled. But at least there should be awareness/vigilance - or it could be unhealthy - maybe it already is?? Do you know for sure? Its hardly democratic doing things behind closed doors - it does happen.
Well you shifted to contract law, and that has nothing to do with governments does it? Governments have the power to do whatever to protect - all I am saying is sometimes thay use bogus arguments to restrict peoples rights under the guise of we must do this for x reason. We are lucky that we live in fairly liberated places - not everyone is that lucky are they? But to my experienc it can happen almost anywhere. I do not propose anything different, theres nothing wrong with drawing up a contract. I am not a total cynic. the majority of people are not out to do one over on someone else. But when it comes to powerful corporations say vs. small fry. Usually money, lawyers and who you know or influence is what counts, and its usually in favour of the big boys. Wanna talk about fairness/rights, OK. an example- here in England there is such a thing as squaters rights. My uncle has a second home which he was renting. The property had subsidence. While empty along came squatters. It is costing my uncle lost time (6 months) and £1000. Who is protecting his rights and property. That is just 1 recent real world everyday example - and a pretty mundane one at that. I have sympathy for the homeless, but my uncle has paid his taxes all his life, why should he bear the brunt? Both sides in this case have some rights, but this is very unbalanced/ unfair to my mind. He is close to retirement and doesn't need this hassle. By rights he should be able to remove legally these people from his property within a couple of weeks at least at minimum cost. The squaters have all the rights and they don't even have a contract or handshake. Whats that about?? But I guess its in someones interest. Obviously not my uncles. The people that should be taking care of this problem are quite happy to pass the buck to law abiding tax payers under the guise of 'squaters rights'. Once they are out they'll go found some other poor shmo to leech off for another 6 months, while the goverment collects its taxes. I am glad that you lead such a rosy life, but there are lots around the world who suffer or get shafted some in asmall way, others lives are ruined. My post was pretty general and not about you and your situation/experience. The US and the constitution were mentioned - yes due to previous context in the thread. are you telling me the situation is perfect? I would say far from. Read Kwajmans post I don't think he would agree with you, he lives in the US. His examples pretty much hit the mark to what I was getting at.
Cuch, about ego. I said its good but not at the expense of quality. Or in other words some things are best kept in check, I beleive in freedom, but from my own experience have found that too much ego can be detremental. To an individual and I am guessing to society as a whole. You can't impose rules on such things, but a balance is all I would like to see more of. In this context I refer to ego as more to do with greed, consumerism, debt - are thes not ailments of ego. Do they lead to a good place? You know me by now, I was throwing stuff out there, and I have always found politics, frustrating - and I was venting a little. But in all honesty I don't think I'm that far off the mark, negative sentiments aside. From my experience, It's a goddam jungle out there!
Hey, Geo... no harm, no foul There is a lot of truth to what you said, but it was more a rant than anything. Yes, you and Kwaj are right- sometimes there are political juntas and the Patriot act is awful. However, don't ignore how important the Social Contract is. The truth is that you said it best when you said: Without some sort of Social Contract, it IS a jungle! So that is why we all give up some rights to be safe and happy citizens.
What a great quote from Caesar. Look where the romans ended up. Now before I start getting hate mail. To me America is the best place in the world, the american bill of rights is about as good as it gets. HOWEVER, those rights and freedoms we have are being eroded with every bill that gets passed these days. We're getting ready for a national ID card that will have a magnetic strip on it or an RFID chip that will be scanned at airports, borders, sometimes when we buy certain things, possibly medications, books, everything we do will be known to the government. Are we willing to give up every freedom we have to live in the land of the free? When we are being stopped by our own government from protesting government policies, its time to get worried friends...
Oh dear, I've got to this stage of the thread and forgotten what it was about in the first place. What? Oh...rights and human nature. Rather disassociated topics if you ask me. We seem to be focusing on rights and the role of government though. In a global civil society, human rights are founded on a core system of reciprocity. That is you adhere to a certain code of behaviour, in this case acknolledging the rights of others, with the assumption that they will reciprocate and acknolledge your own rights. Ofcourse, this assumes that both partys will act in a rational manner, co-operation is in both their best interests for long term gain. However, there are always cases where individuals tend to deviate from the rational approach for short term gain and often at the expense of the other persons rights. For this reason, a mechanism is required to enforce the rights of individuals in a society and also deter any deviations from rationality. The Social Contract has already been mentioned, so I won't go into that. As well as Hobbes and Rosseau, you should also read Augustine and Machiavelli.
Why Augustine? Aristotle would probably be a better source, especially because the Social Contract works best with seperation of church and state. Machiavelli is a good recommendation, but he is very layered and difficult. You have to have an in-depth knowledge of classical Roman and Greek history, as well as an understanding of 16th century Italian politics to really get into Machiavelli. In fact, he was so nuanced, that Rousseau at one point writes that The Prince is actually a work of satire, not meant to be taken seriously. I don't know if this is true one way or the other, but please do be careful with Machiavelli.
