Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Kyuuketsuki**

(5th July 2009 20:29)Adrian Hayter Wrote: Yes, I think rights exist without laws. I think laws are made to protect rights in a society. As for specific rights, I would say the right to free speech, the right to property, the right to life, the right to death (or choosing when you die), etc. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

What right to free speech does a man with a gun to his head have? What right does a drowning woman or a man dying of cancer have to life? What right does a prisoner in body turned traitor have to death?

None of these things are rights, certainly not inalienable ... they are granted by "rights-based" societies (or by benevolent dictatorships).

What we all do have however is responsibility ... I have the responsibility to grant you freedom of speech (and you and you and you ...) and from that, if everyone does the same, we get the right to freedom of speech (you don't need laws for that just a society that understands the concept that if you grant others freedoms you get them in return). That is why I don't believe in rights ... I believe in responsibilities!

Kyu

**Adrian Hayter**

(5th July 2009 22:04)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: What right to free speech does a man with a gun to his head have? What right does a drowning woman or a man dying of cancer have to life? What right does a prisoner in body turned traitor have to death?

The answer: They all do. Of course, all of the examples above are just mere distractions and have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Quote:None of these things are rights, certainly not inalienable ... they are granted by "rights-based" societies (or by benevolent dictatorships).

I never said they were inalienable, and I never denied that they were granted by rights-based societies. I said they were rights, and they are...

Quote:What we all do have however is responsibility ... I have the responsibility to grant you freedom of speech (and you and you and you ...) and from that, if everyone does the same, we get the right to freedom of speech (you don't need laws for that just a society that understands the concept that if you grant others freedoms you get them in return). That is why I don't believe in rights ... I believe in responsibilities!

Agreed, but I fail to see why the existence of responsibilities to enact rights means the rights don't exist. Rights are generated by society and we give the responsibility of them over to our governments. Your argument is a bit like saying that a lighthouse keeper has the responsibility to look after the lighthouse, but if the lighthouse keeper didn't exist, neither would the lighthouse.

**Kyuuketsuki**

And you, in my opinion, fail to understand that if a "right" is granted (and they all are) it cannot be a right ... if it relies on it being granted (and they all do) then some people may not (almost certainly do not) possess them therefore they cannot be a right.

IOW I believe in responsibilities that create a "rights" but not rights (the quotes meaning they're not actually real in the sense that people tend to perceive rights). There's a huge difference between individuals possessing rights and society granting them ... in essence I suppose it means that an individual can never possess a "right" or rather never has a "right" as an attribute.

Kyu