Structural Rights

[osan]

https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2019/10/structural-rights.html




The term "natural rights" appears to give a great many people, most of whom appear to my eyes to be something of cynics, great heartburn. Though the world needs more jargon about as much as we all need additional holes in our heads, I would like to offer a term in the spirit of easing the violent rejection experienced by so many who rebel against notion of "natural rights".


The term I would like to introduce is "structural rights", a designation synonymous with "natural rights". Why, then, offer up yet another term for the same concept? Just as many people turn off at any mention of religion that is not cursing or damning it, so it has been with talk of natural rights, which I suspect is often intimately associated with "God-given rights", which brings us right back to the religion issue and the related aversions.


Whatever the true reason, a great number of people reject the concept of natural rights, often with protestations that run along the lines of the belief that there are no such things, replete with the notable absence of anything even vaguely resembling a valid argument in support of the assertion. That, of course, is quite untrue, but if one wishes to enter into discourse of the nature of our fundamental rights as human beings, one must first be able to get others to listen.


Therefore, if the exchange of ideas is the intermediate objective in order to bring others to a better understanding of what rights actually are, perhaps with a goal of persuasion, we have to be able to get the ideas on the table before people turn off or, ever more commonly today, go on a war footing.


For many, "natural rights", appears to have an air of some tacit and invalid bias about it, whereas "structural rights" is more neutral sounding, rather than something that's escaped the inner sanctum of the great temple at Hokum. When presented in this seemingly neutral cast, I have found in many cases that people remain off their guard and actually listen to what it is you have to say thereafter.


What can we say of our structure as beings? The short logic chain might look something like this:

1. We all live
2. That which lives appears to universally wish to remain so, all else equal
3. Wishing to remain alive, it follows that we claim our lives as our own; what I have termed our "First Property".
4. Our claim to life is precisely our right to life because a right is defined as a "just claim".
5. Therefore, by virtue of being alive and wishing to remain so, we assert our claims to our First Property, that is, our very structure as beings.
6. By extension, we further stake our claims to that which sustains our structures as living beings.
7. Our structure as living beings, part of which is the drive to remain alive, leads to our claims to life and all that which is necessary to not only survive, but preferably to thrive.

The foregoing is by no means a perfect argument, but it is on the right path and is offered that one might get the basic gist of the argument that explains the nature of rights.




Our very structure as beings drives us to the claims we call our rights. It is precisely because we all share those drives in common, and act pursuant to the interests those claims seek to serve, that no man holds the authority to dismiss such claims of his fellows. This is the true meaning of "equality" between individuals. Our structural rights are equal between us because we share identical claims to life at the most abstract level.




One man cannot validly assert a greater claim to his life than I do to mine, for the contention makes no sense on the one hand, and cannot in any event be validly proven, on the other. Furthermore, one man may not validly assert a greater claim to the life of another than the other may to his own. It can be well argued that one man can assert a claim to the life of another man, certainly not without consent, and all else equal.




The very structures we share as living entities defines our rights and establishes the true and proper senses of our equality as living beings.




"Structural rights" as an alternative card to play may prove a good tool to keep up your sleeve in the event you run into one of those sorts who runs from "natural rights" as if he were on fire.




For what it is worth the alternative phrasing is offered, and as always please accept my best wishes.

[A Son of Liberty]

https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2019/10/structural-rights.html




The term "natural rights" appears to give a great many people, most of whom appear to my eyes to be something of cynics, great heartburn. Though the world needs more jargon about as much as we all need additional holes in our heads, I would like to offer a term in the spirit of easing the violent rejection experienced by so many who rebel against notion of "natural rights".


The term I would like to introduce is "structural rights", a designation synonymous with "natural rights". Why, then, offer up yet another term for the same concept? Just as many people turn off at any mention of religion that is not cursing or damning it, so it has been with talk of natural rights, which I suspect is often intimately associated with "God-given rights", which brings us right back to the religion issue and the related aversions.


Whatever the true reason, a great number of people reject the concept of natural rights, often with protestations that run along the lines of the belief that there are no such things, replete with the notable absence of anything even vaguely resembling a valid argument in support of the assertion. That, of course, is quite untrue, but if one wishes to enter into discourse of the nature of our fundamental rights as human beings, one must first be able to get others to listen.


Therefore, if the exchange of ideas is the intermediate objective in order to bring others to a better understanding of what rights actually are, perhaps with a goal of persuasion, we have to be able to get the ideas on the table before people turn off or, ever more commonly today, go on a war footing.


For many, "natural rights", appears to have an air of some tacit and invalid bias about it, whereas "structural rights" is more neutral sounding, rather than something that's escaped the inner sanctum of the great temple at Hokum. When presented in this seemingly neutral cast, I have found in many cases that people remain off their guard and actually listen to what it is you have to say thereafter.


What can we say of our structure as beings? The short logic chain might look something like this:

1. We all live
2. That which lives appears to universally wish to remain so, all else equal
3. Wishing to remain alive, it follows that we claim our lives as our own; what I have termed our "First Property".
4. Our claim to life is precisely our right to life because a right is defined as a "just claim".
5. Therefore, by virtue of being alive and wishing to remain so, we assert our claims to our First Property, that is, our very structure as beings.
6. By extension, we further stake our claims to that which sustains our structures as living beings.
7. Our structure as living beings, part of which is the drive to remain alive, leads to our claims to life and all that which is necessary to not only survive, but preferably to thrive.

The foregoing is by no means a perfect argument, but it is on the right path and is offered that one might get the basic gist of the argument that explains the nature of rights.




Our very structure as beings drives us to the claims we call our rights. It is precisely because we all share those drives in common, and act pursuant to the interests those claims seek to serve, that no man holds the authority to dismiss such claims of his fellows. This is the true meaning of "equality" between individuals. Our structural rights are equal between us because we share identical claims to life at the most abstract level.




One man cannot validly assert a greater claim to his life than I do to mine, for the contention makes no sense on the one hand, and cannot in any event be validly proven, on the other. Furthermore, one man may not validly assert a greater claim to the life of another than the other may to his own. It can be well argued that one man can assert a claim to the life of another man, certainly not without consent, and all else equal.




The very structures we share as living entities defines our rights and establishes the true and proper senses of our equality as living beings.




"Structural rights" as an alternative card to play may prove a good tool to keep up your sleeve in the event you run into one of those sorts who runs from "natural rights" as if he were on fire.




For what it is worth the alternative phrasing is offered, and as always please accept my best wishes.

Well formulated as always, sir. I have nothing to say against it.

I think ultimately the problem is not the formulation of the argument, but that the people who "reject" "Natural Rights" are immune to reason and logically formulated arguments. In fact, they find the very word, "argument", to be offensive.

We're dealing with broken human beings, I'm afraid. I don't want to discourage you, especially if you've found success in presenting these ideas in this way... my theory is that government-run schools have so corrupted the minds of the young - the inheritors of the future - that logic and reason are practically an alien language. Or maybe I'm just feeling particularly cynical this morning... But it seems that the world of the future is built upon feelings and emotion.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the time for discussion is coming to a close, and I see too few among the next generation - the young and abler-bodied - who are eager to take up the standard.

[otherone]

Explaining ownership in self as an alternative to natural rights has been an easier sell for me.

[osan]

I think ultimately the problem is not the formulation of the argument, but that the people who "reject" "Natural Rights" are immune to reason and logically formulated arguments.

I agree that this is so in the majority of cases, but not in all. There are a significant number of those who reject the notion of natural rights simply because they labor from a set of assumptions, most likely tacit, that predisposes them to such dismissals. Those are the ones to whom the argument may be fruitfully altered.

Of course, another tack I have employed revolves around the good old Socratic method where I simply ask them to demonstrate the validity of their position. The are never able to do it, and while they may not come around to sense and reason, they have at least been lead to the realization that something is amiss in their world.

In fact, they find the very word, "argument", to be offensive.

A great plurality of Americans equate "argue" with "quarrel", which of course is not correct.

We're dealing with broken human beings, I'm afraid.

Agreed, but are we not all broken in some sense and degree? Some forms of breakage can be repaired. If we are to make the effort to educate people to the better way, we should have at out disposal as many tools as possible. Everyone is different in some way and what works for Johnny may not cut muster with Jane.

I don't want to discourage you, especially if you've found success in presenting these ideas in this way... my theory is that government-run schools have so corrupted the minds of the young - the inheritors of the future - that logic and reason are practically an alien language. Or maybe I'm just feeling particularly cynical this morning... But it seems that the world of the future is built upon feelings and emotion.

This is, of course, all true, but to do nothing is to hand the world over to Themme on a silver platter. As I've quipped many times before, Theye are active and serious as a heart attack about subduing the race of Freemen under boot. Every Weakman we rescue and bring into the fold is one less ally upon which Theye can count to remain out of their way at the very least.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the time for discussion is coming to a close, and I see too few among the next generation - the young and abler-bodied - who are eager to take up the standard.

"Coming" != "has come to". Until we start slitting each others' throats, I say keep talking. As for the young, I am of a mixed emotion. I suspect the majority of so-called "millennials" are indeed hopelessly weak, pridefully ignorant, impossibly avaricious, and toxically self-absorbed. But out here in the provinces I have met far greater numbers of that ilk who were raised correctly. They are smart, kind, mindful of others, show self-respect, and so on down the laundry list of qualities necessary to the status of Freeman. I note that most of them are also good Christians, which I do not consider an incidental fact.

For me the question of what it is of which America is currently made remains open. It feels close, but I have no idea whether I can trust that vague intuition.

I do not believe that the levels of tension, especially the blood-hatred of the "left", can be maintained much longer. OTOH, I also didn't think the .com bubble could last over a decade, so I take certain intuitions with a boulder of salt, or three. But if I am no mistaken, and further based on the other things I see in the political circus, then we are now at the nexus where we are about to make the decision whether to go to war between factions. In the case bullets start to fly, we will shortly come to learn the truth about what constitutes the American heart. If the "right" doesn't lay down forthwith, it appears they will spank the left in short order, all else equal. But what if Theye have planned well for this contingency? I have heard that there are 100K Chinese troops in the mountains of Mexico. Is this true? I have no idea, but if it proved so, I would be in no measure surprised. Supposedly there are well over one MILLION foreign troops on US soil as I type these words. It seems ridiculous, but could it be true? The Chinese have had control of the port of Long Beach for many years - time enough to import countless soldiers and arms for a Tet-style offensive. Does anyone actually believe they have been up to nothing more than running an honest trading hub?

The possibilities are broad and disturbing, to say the least. Only time will tell, once Theye manage to push one side or the other to take the first shot.

[osan]

Explaining ownership in self as an alternative to natural rights has been an easier sell for me.

Self-ownership becomes self-evident when speaking in structural terms.

[A Son of Liberty]

I agree that this is so in the majority of cases, but not in all. There are a significant number of those who reject the notion of natural rights simply because they labor from a set of assumptions, most likely tacit, that predisposes them to such dismissals. Those are the ones to whom the argument may be fruitfully altered.

Of course, another tack I have employed revolves around the good old Socratic method where I simply ask them to demonstrate the validity of their position. The are never able to do it, and while they may not come around to sense and reason, they have at least been lead to the realization that something is amiss in their world.



Agreed, but are we not all broken in some sense and degree? Some forms of breakage can be repaired. If we are to make the effort to educate people to the better way, we should have at out disposal as many tools as possible. Everyone is different in some way and what works for Johnny may not cut muster with Jane.


This is, of course, all true, but to do nothing is to hand the world over to Themme on a silver platter. As I've quipped many times before, Theye are active and serious as a heart attack about subduing the race of Freemen under boot. Every Weakman we rescue and bring into the fold is one less ally upon which Theye can count to remain out of their way at the very least.


"Coming" != "has come to". Until we start slitting each others' throats, I say keep talking. As for the young, I am of a mixed emotion. I suspect the majority of so-called "millennials" are indeed hopelessly weak, pridefully ignorant, impossibly avaricious, and toxically self-absorbed. But out here in the provinces I have met far greater numbers of that ilk who were raised correctly. They are smart, kind, mindful of others, show self-respect, and so on down the laundry list of qualities necessary to the status of Freeman. I note that most of them are also good Christians, which I do not consider an incidental fact.

You're right, and I find myself in the unenviable position of being guilty of that which I accused most other people - allowing myself to be ruled by emotion.

I'll take the lesson and hopefully learn from it.

[The Rebel Poet]

https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2019/10/structural-rights.html




The term "natural rights" appears to give a great many people, most of whom appear to my eyes to be something of cynics, great heartburn. Though the world needs more jargon about as much as we all need additional holes in our heads, I would like to offer a term in the spirit of easing the violent rejection experienced by so many who rebel against notion of "natural rights".


The term I would like to introduce is "structural rights", a designation synonymous with "natural rights". Why, then, offer up yet another term for the same concept? Just as many people turn off at any mention of religion that is not cursing or damning it, so it has been with talk of natural rights, which I suspect is often intimately associated with "God-given rights", which brings us right back to the religion issue and the related aversions.


Whatever the true reason, a great number of people reject the concept of natural rights, often with protestations that run along the lines of the belief that there are no such things, replete with the notable absence of anything even vaguely resembling a valid argument in support of the assertion. That, of course, is quite untrue, but if one wishes to enter into discourse of the nature of our fundamental rights as human beings, one must first be able to get others to listen.


Therefore, if the exchange of ideas is the intermediate objective in order to bring others to a better understanding of what rights actually are, perhaps with a goal of persuasion, we have to be able to get the ideas on the table before people turn off or, ever more commonly today, go on a war footing.


For many, "natural rights", appears to have an air of some tacit and invalid bias about it, whereas "structural rights" is more neutral sounding, rather than something that's escaped the inner sanctum of the great temple at Hokum. When presented in this seemingly neutral cast, I have found in many cases that people remain off their guard and actually listen to what it is you have to say thereafter.

I agree that finding new ways to explain things when people have lost the ability to understand or listen is important. +rep

What can we say of our structure as beings? The short logic chain might look something like this:

1. We all live
2. That which lives appears to universally wish to remain so, all else equal
3. Wishing to remain alive, it follows that we claim our lives as our own; what I have termed our "First Property".
4. Our claim to life is precisely our right to life because a right is defined as a "just claim".
5. Therefore, by virtue of being alive and wishing to remain so, we assert our claims to our First Property, that is, our very structure as beings.
6. By extension, we further stake our claims to that which sustains our structures as living beings.
7. Our structure as living beings, part of which is the drive to remain alive, leads to our claims to life and all that which is necessary to not only survive, but preferably to thrive.

There is something to this, but allow me to play devil's advocate:

1. We all live
2. That which lives appears to universally wish to remain so, all else equal
3. Wishing to remain alive, it follows that we claim our lives as our own; what I have termed our "First Property".
4. Our claim to life is precisely our right to life because a right is defined as a "just claim".
5. Therefore, by virtue of being alive and wishing to remain so, we assert our claims to our First Property, that is, our very structure as beings.
6. By extension, we further stake our claims to that which sustains our structures as living beings.
7. Our structure as living beings, part of which is the drive to remain alive, leads to our claims to life and universal free healthcare.

The foregoing is by no means a perfect argument, but it is on the right path and is offered that one might get the basic gist of the argument that explains the nature of rights.




Our very structure as beings drives us to the claims we call our rights. It is precisely because we all share those drives in common, and act pursuant to the interests those claims seek to serve, that no man holds the authority to dismiss such claims of his fellows. This is the true meaning of "equality" between individuals. Our structural rights are equal between us because we share identical claims to life at the most abstract level.




One man cannot validly assert a greater claim to his life than I do to mine, for the contention makes no sense on the one hand, and cannot in any event be validly proven, on the other. Furthermore, one man may not validly assert a greater claim to the life of another than the other may to his own. It can be well argued that one man can assert a claim to the life of another man, certainly not without consent, and all else equal.




The very structures we share as living entities defines our rights and establishes the true and proper senses of our equality as living beings.




"Structural rights" as an alternative card to play may prove a good tool to keep up your sleeve in the event you run into one of those sorts who runs from "natural rights" as if he were on fire.




For what it is worth the alternative phrasing is offered, and as always please accept my best wishes.

overall, I like this idea, but let me add a very tiny thought. I think the word "structural" often carries a connotation of something artificial or constructed e.g. "structural racism." This is the exact opposite of what you intend to convey.

[r3volution 3.0]

Is-Ought Problem

[osan]

I agree that finding new ways to explain things when people have lost the ability to understand or listen is important. +rep There is something to this, but allow me to play devil's advocate:

1. We all live
2. That which lives appears to universally wish to remain so, all else equal
3. Wishing to remain alive, it follows that we claim our lives as our own; what I have termed our "First Property".
4. Our claim to life is precisely our right to life because a right is defined as a "just claim".
5. Therefore, by virtue of being alive and wishing to remain so, we assert our claims to our First Property, that is, our very structure as beings.
6. By extension, we further stake our claims to that which sustains our structures as living beings.
7. Our structure as living beings, part of which is the drive to remain alive, leads to our claims to life and universal free healthcare.

[SIZE=4]

Very tricky, but easily dismantled. As I noted, the chain is not perfect. I failed to add elements referring to the equal rights of all - the true equality of men - and the direct inference that being equal, the rights of one man or group thereof in no way trump those of the "least" among us. That pretty well destroys the claim of universal healthcare because in order to obtain it, robbery must be employed through the false and felonious institution of taxation.

overall, I like this idea, but let me add a very tiny thought. I think the word "structural" often carries a connotation of something artificial or constructed e.g. "structural racism." This is the exact opposite of what you intend to convey.

While I am confident that what you claim is true in some cases, I will submit that those are a small minority, whereas "natural right" has been the object of targeted taint for many years, to the point of having become the object of out-of-hand ridicule and consequent dismissal.

Structural can refer to that of a flower, or a frog's brain - all very "natural", and oh the irony of it.

There is only so much that can be done pursuant to education. There are those who will not see the better way, even if you stand on your head and spit nickels. Therefore, I say do the best one can. I have attempted an improvement here pursuant to the problems I have perceived with the label of "natural rights". Use of "structural" may catch, or it may not. My goal is to provide options. As previously stated, anything that brings another soul into the fold of Freemen and which violates nobody is "good" in my book.

I will add that "structure" refers to the very natural and readily discernible structure of the relationships between men and between an individual man and the world around him. Once again, the rights derive with great force from the very structure of a man - what he IS as a living being - and the nature of his relationship with those around him and whose rights are selfsame and identical in their fabric, all outward appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Todd]

Whoah Whoah Osan. You might splode some heads around here now with that philosophical talk.

Right now we need to concentrate on talking about Kurdish rights and the rights of teh Oil companies.

[osan]

Is-Ought Problem

This reference is sufficiently non-specific in its application as to render it meaningless. Perhaps a bit more context would prove helpful.

There are several ways in which this could be made relevant to the topic at hand. I am not in the humor to guess at which you intend.

I will further state that Hume's theories carry certain problems of universality, particularly in the pragmatic world.

For example, there is no logical problem when, discovering you in the process of murdering a toddler, that I deduce and conclude that you OUGHT NOT be murdering a toddler. The "ought not" follows perfectly from the "is" in any way that is actually meaningful outside the world of pure and dare I say pedantic theory.

[osan]

Whoah Whoah Osan. You might splode some heads around here now with that philosophical talk.

Right now we need to concentrate on talking about Kurdish rights and the rights of teh Oil companies.

Some heads appear to be in dire need of exploding.

[osan]

You're right, and I find myself in the unenviable position of being guilty of that which I accused most other people - allowing myself to be ruled by emotion.

I'll take the lesson and hopefully learn from it.

[r3volution 3.0]

Perhaps a bit more context would prove helpful.

The ethical arguments you're making attempt to derive an ought from an is, which cannot be done.

I agree with your conclusions, more or less, but the argument you use to reach them is unsound.

For example, there is no logical problem when, discovering you in the process of murdering a toddler, that I deduce and conclude that you OUGHT NOT be murdering a toddler. The "ought not" follows perfectly from the "is" in any way that is actually meaningful outside the world of pure and dare I say pedantic theory.

From what?

[osan]

The ethical arguments you're making attempt to derive an ought from an is, which cannot be done.

Just because Hume concluded as he did, it does not follow that his argument is not broken. It seems to me that it is, and as I recall there is no consensus as to whether the problem actually holds in point of fact. Given the absence of proof, I am comfortable in ignoring its significance. There's theory, and there's practical application. I am as much about the practical as anything else.

I agree with your conclusions, more or less, but the argument you use to reach them is unsound.

Soundness has not been disproved because the standard in question is not established, but only speculated - and to be honest, it is Hume's problem that seems unsound to me.

From what?

From the reasonable assumption that the toddler does not wish to die and the fact that nobody holds the authority to take life without permission. This reasoning is not unsound.