Human rights do not exist

[Torsten]

Can rights just exist, because human beings exist? Can one put a legal obligation onto others to observe/respect/enforce those rights:

Human rights do not exist.
Human rights are rights that belong to human beings simply by virtue of
being human. A right to X indicates that an individual has, or ought to
have, a legitimate claim to X that obligates other individuals not to
deny the individual X and obligates the government to protect the
individual’s possession of X. Given this understanding of rights, to
qualify as a right, a proposed right must meet at least two minimal
conditions. The first is that there actually are other individuals to
be so obligated. The second is that there is an effective government
mechanism for protecting the object of the proposed right. Human beings
may inhabit circumstances or contexts in which either or both
conditions are not met without losing their humanity. In such
circumstances or contexts, it would be inconsistent to claim that such
human beings would continue to possess rights. Since there are
circumstances or contexts in which it does not make sense to claim that
a human being has a right to anything, human rights cannot exist. Human
beings cannot have rights simply by virtue of being human. Rights have
to be founded on an alternative basis.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/2/8/4/p82840_index.html

Any comments or further thoughts

[EternalSanction]

I’m pretty sure this passage just threw me in the opposite direction and convinced me of natural rights. Saying that rights don’t exist because men can be deprived of them is like saying that life doesn’t exist because men can be killed.

[The_Late_Andrew_Ryan]

There are a million different reasons for human rights that obey NAP, your quote proves nothing. You also can’t have a government if you believe in a humans right to property because in order to exist the government must forcibly take the money of law abiding citizens forcibly, this is theft and should be treated as such

[Torsten]

@Justin Spahr-Summers

Saying that rights don’t exist because men can be deprived of them is like saying that life doesn’t exist because men can be killed.

That’s not what the text says. The text says that for (the assumed) rights to have any meaningful function other agents/institutions have to be in place.

@The Late Andrew Ryan

There are a million different reasons for human rights that obey NAP, your quote proves nothing.

If there are so many reasons, why not name a few. You are basically claiming what you got to prove.

@The Late Andrew Ryan

You also can’t have a government if you believe in a humans right to property because in order to exist the government must forcibly take the money of law abiding citizens forcibly, this is theft and should be treated as such

Property rights only make sense under the following conditions:

1. You are not the only human on the planet/island. There is a potential that someone else can come into dispute with over the object the property right is claimed for.
2. There are means or an agency to defend a claim on property.

[wilderness]

@Torsten

You are basically claiming what you got to prove.

Yeap, it’s also known as a circular proof. A is A.

[Conza]

@Torsten

Any comments or further thoughts

Human Rights as Property Rights - Murray Rothbard

[Snowflake]

Oh ontology. How we enjoy you.

[Angurse]

@wilderness

Yeap, it’s also known as a circular proof. A is A.

Yes, a particular species of question-begging, otherwise known to be a fallacy.

[John_Ess]

I think it’s perfectly okay to say rights don’t exist.

It just so happens that no one has the right to initiate aggression, form states, etc.

[wilderness]

@Angurse

@wilderness

Yeap, it’s also known as a circular proof. A is A.

Yes, a particular species of question-begging, otherwise known to be a fallacy.

No. I am referring to the demonstration, not the dialectical ‘asking’.

As in Prior Anayltics by Aristotle commented upon by Robin Smith:

“In modern use, the expressions ‘arguing in a circle’ and ‘begging the question’ are roughly interchangeable, which may contribute to our own inability to see that these are, for Aristotle, completely different things. A circular deduction for him is an extended structure of deductions in which each presmise also appears as a conclusion… He tells us, there, that circular proof is just proving that ‘when A is, then A is’…”

You misinterpreted what I said.

[K.C_Farmer]

@Torsten

Human rights do not exist.

Trying to prove a negative. Good luck.

@Torsten

1. Human rights are rights that belong to human beings simply by virtue of
being human.

Human rights belong to human beings by definition.

@Torsten

2. A right to X indicates that an individual has, or ought to
have, a legitimate claim to X that obligates other individuals not to
deny the individual X and obligates the government to protect the
individual’s possession of X.

Here you are speaking only to claim rights rather than liberty rights. Claim rights imply an obligation, while liberty rights do not. The “ought to have” statements is superfluous. I also think the obligations of government are debatable, just as the existence of government.

@Torsten

3. Given this understanding of rights, to
qualify as a right, a proposed right must meet at least two minimal
conditions.

These conditions are your presupposition, and have yet to be proven.

@Torsten

3a. The first is that there actually are other individuals to
be so obligated.

The lack of others obligated to recognize a property right does not disqualify the existence of the right.

@Torsten

3b. The second is that there is an effective government
mechanism for protecting the object of the proposed right.

This point is incorrect. The is no requirement for government to even exist in order to have property rights.

@Torsten

4. Human beings
may inhabit circumstances or contexts in which either or both
conditions are not met without losing their humanity.

The conditions are flawed. The fact you state is irrelevant. Without your conditions, the rights are simply uncontested.

@Torsten

5. In such
circumstances or contexts, it would be inconsistent to claim that such
human beings would continue to possess rights.

First, uncontested rights don’t equate to nonexistence of rights. Second, even if this flawed reasoning were true, you’re not able to apply it to the real world because you’d be violating your own preconditions your entire conclusion is based on.

@Torsten

6. Since there are
circumstances or contexts in which it does not make sense to claim that
a human being has a right to anything, human rights cannot exist.

Wrong. The sky is blue (based on an optical effect). There are certain conditions which make that statement false - such as night or under overcast conditions. You can’t then simply claim therefore a blue sky cannot exist.

@Torsten

7. Human
beings cannot have rights simply by virtue of being human.

You have not proven this.

@Torsten

8. Rights have
to be founded on an alternative basis.

You have not proven this.

[K.C_Farmer]

@wilderness

@Angurse

@wilderness

Yeap, it’s also known as a circular proof. A is A.

Yes, a particular species of question-begging, otherwise known to be a fallacy.

No. I am referring to the demonstration, not the dialectical ‘asking’.

As in Prior Anayltics by Aristotle commented upon by Robin Smith:

“In modern use, the expressions ‘arguing in a circle’ and ‘begging the question’ are roughly interchangeable, which may contribute to our own inability to see that these are, for Aristotle, completely different things. A circular deduction for him is an extended structure of deductions in which each presmise also appears as a conclusion… He tells us, there, that circular proof is just proving that ‘when A is, then A is’…”

You misinterpreted what I said.

I think he’s thinking of circular reasoning, which has been linked to fallacy, whether correctly or not. To most, ‘A is A’ is referred to as the identity axiom.

[wilderness]

@K.C. Farmer

I think he’s thinking of circular reasoning, which has been linked to fallacy,

I know what he is talking about. He distinctly brought up something different than what I was referring to.

@K.C. Farmer

whether correctly or not.

Angurse is correct in that “begging the question” is a fallacy. I wasn’t talking about begging the question though. It was a simple misunderstanding, no big deal.

@K.C. Farmer

To most, ‘A is A’ is referred to as the identity axiom.

yes, that is the identity axiom, but I was specifically discussing the deduction of premises through identity being known also as circular proof “when A is, then A is”.

[Torsten]

@Conza88

Human Rights as Property Rights - Murray Rothbard

Thanks - Human Rights need to be distungished by other forms of rights. Here is the declaration of Human Rights:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

That human rights don’t exist, doesn’t mean that the existence of other types of rights isn’t possible. To me all forms of rights have to be cultural by there very nature. They are basically a convention people agree (or disagree) on. Property rights are I think I can agree on, although I won’t consider them as absolute as some do here.

[K.C_Farmer]

@Torsten

Here is the declaration of Human Rights:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Not the best source for the basis of human rights. In fact, some of the articles are a direct attack against liberty.

[Angurse]

@wilderness

No. I am referring to the demonstration, not the dialectical ‘asking’.

As in Prior Anayltics by Aristotle commented upon by Robin Smith:

“In modern use, the expressions ‘arguing in a circle’ and ‘begging the question’ are roughly interchangeable, which may contribute to our own inability to see that these are, for Aristotle, completely different things. A circular deduction for him is an extended structure of deductions in which each presmise also appears as a conclusion… He tells us, there, that circular proof is just proving that ‘when A is, then A is’…”

You misinterpreted what I said.

Unless you meant a different circular proof, I certainly did misinterpret you. But In Posterior Anaylitics, Aristotle tried to solve the the regress problem by denying the assumptions on which it depends. And re-read what I said (different species are not the same thing). Human rights cannot be proven to exist via A is A, as it completely avoids the question “does A even exist?”

[The_Late_Andrew_Ryan]

@Torsten

@Justin Spahr-Summers

Saying that rights don’t exist because men can be deprived of them is like saying that life doesn’t exist because men can be killed.

That’s not what the text says. The text says that for (the assumed) rights to have any meaningful function other agents/institutions have to be in place.

@The Late Andrew Ryan

There are a million different reasons for human rights that obey NAP, your quote proves nothing.

If there are so many reasons, why not name a few. You are basically claiming what you got to prove.

@The Late Andrew Ryan

You also can’t have a government if you believe in a humans right to property because in order to exist the government must forcibly take the money of law abiding citizens forcibly, this is theft and should be treated as such

Property rights only make sense under the following conditions:

1. You are not the only human on the planet/island. There is a potential that someone else can come into dispute with over the object the property right is claimed for.
2. There are means or an agency to defend a claim on property.

Well the classical argument for human rights is that it is self evident that people have rights. I find that a little shaky but in the end all answers or explinations always half to come out of self evident assumptions or “because”. You could also take stefan molyneux’s argument for the universal prefferability of human rights as opposed to a lack thereof. I personally find humans important becuase in a world of chaos and random events there are beings who produce logical actions.

Yes there is a need for an agency to defend rights but this can’t exist if it directly contradicts human rights as states do.

[wilderness]

@Angurse

@wilderness

You misinterpreted what I said.

Unless you meant a different circular proof, I certainly did misinterpret you.

as I said and quoted - yes “different” (circular proof).

good day sir

edit: I clarified above and erased “circular proof” from my original statement cause I was talking about something different than begging the question, which I haven’t ever come across begging the question also having the name circular proof. I erased the original posting here for clarity’s sake and left in parenthesis what was originally present before this edit.

[Saan]

@Torsten

Property rights only make sense under the following conditions:

1. You are not the only human on the planet/island. There is a potential that someone else can come into dispute with over the object the property right is claimed for.
2. There are means or an agency to defend a claim on property.

1. You, I, Nor anyone else will ever experience isolation from humans. We are born of our mothers. This statement is redundant.

2. The means is your body and mind.

Property rights make sense then. Your conditions are met. Next question. Is your body your property? If it is, do property rights apply to it? If they do can we say those are the first property rights a human enjoys?

Too many questions to be asked. Bad proof try again

[Juan]

Thanks - Human Rights need to be distungished by other forms of rights. Here is the declaration of Human Rights:

The concept of human rights/individual rights/natural rights is libertarian. The social democrats/UN have partially hijacked ‘human rights’ but that doesn’t mean that the original concept is invalid.