Questions re Rights and Voting

Eppur_si_muove · February 2, 2012, 2:04pm

Part A: For each of the statements below, indicate whether you agree or disagree. Include an explanation if you wish:

“A person cannot have the right to take an action that would have the effect of violating the rights of another person.”
“A person has (or should have) the right to vote, regardless of the policy for which he (or she) is voting or the policies advocated by the candidate for which he is voting.”
“A person has the right to vote in favor of preventing another person from voting.”
“A person has the right to vote in favor of instituting a dictatorship in which voting would be abolished entirely.”
“To kill an innocent person deliberately would constitute a violation of his rights.”
“A person has the right to vote in favor of killing innocent people within his society.”

Part B: With regard to Part A, are there particular answers or combinations of answers that you think are inconsistent with a coherent view of human rights?

Part C: Can you draw any conclusions from the above about what forms of government might or might not be compatible with human rights?

Part D: Define the noun-concept “right.” Suggested format: “A right is a(n) ______.” If you think the word has more than one meaning, define its core (primary) meaning. Please don’t just quote from dictionaries; the idea is to convey YOUR thoughts.

I may (or may not) offer my own responses later in the thread.

MJuric · February 2, 2012, 3:01pm

“A person cannot have the right to take an action that would have the effect of violating the rights of another person.”

Disagree. In the case of self defense one has the right to violate the others right to life.

2. “A person has (or should have) the right to vote, regardless of the policy for which he (or she) is voting or the policies advocated by the candidate for which he is voting.”

Not sure. Depends on the system in which they are voting. I don’t believe a person should have the right to vote if that vote violates others rights.

Under a system where ones vote does not have the ability to infringe on anothers rights I see no reason why ones “Right to vote” should ever be infringed upon. OTOH under a system where votes are regularly cast toward the infringements of others rights I see the “Right to vote” as no longer a right and thus can and likely should be infringed upon. I guess I see this as similar to the “Self defense” condition above.

3. “A person has the right to vote in favor of preventing another person from voting.”

I think we’re watering down the use of the word “Right” at this point but based on the conditions above if one’s rights are being infringed upon by those voting then I would consider it “Self defense” to attempt to keep those individuals from further infringing upon your rights.

4. “A person has the right to vote in favor of instituting a dictatorship in which voting would be abolished entirely.”

Since “Self defense” is not “Being protected” I do not see a case where one could claim “Self defense” yet ask someone else to protect them. So I would say that no you could not vote in a dictator.

“To kill an innocent person deliberately would constitute a violation of his rights.”

Yes.

**6. “A person has the right to vote in favor of killing innocent people within his society.” **

No.

Part B: With regard to Part A, are there particular answers or combinations of answers that you think are inconsistent with a coherent view of human rights?

I would not say “Inconsistent” as much as “Not absolute”, IOW not covering all feasible conditions of human rights.

**Part C: Can you draw any conclusions from the above about what forms of government might or might not be compatible with human rights? **

Compatible, yes, recommended or “Best” I don’t think so.

**Part D: Define the noun-concept “right.” Suggested format: “A right is a(n) ______.” If you think the word has more than one meaning, define its core (primary) meaning. Please don’t just quote from dictionaries; the idea is to convey YOUR thoughts. **

I think there are two…ok three commonly used definitions of rights. Two of these I would consider to be “Rights” the third, not at all.

I believe there are “Natural rights”. These are rights that have proven thru history, many societies and many conditions to have been shown to be necessary for individual first and then social/communal success. These rights exist as “Natural law” much the same way that gravity exists. They can not be “Removed” from the individual, merely limited or thwarted by others.

I believe there are “Legal rights”. These rights are the rights given to an individual by a government or community. Often times these rights are based on the above “Natural rights” and or are “Extensions” or “Definitions” of those rights.

I belive there are “Non right Rights”. These typically boil down to people claiming they want something they don’t have and claiming it is “There right” to have these things. Many times these things require others to give up their rights in order for these individuals to have them and thus are not rights at all.

Do I win a prize?

~Matt

TheForge · February 2, 2012, 3:08pm

I think you are asking too much for a thread on a triathlon forum, but I’ll play along.

Part A: For each of the statements below, indicate whether you agree or disagree. Include an explanation if you wish:

“A person cannot have the right to take an action that would have the effect of violating the rights of another person.” Depend. The simple answer is no, but at certain points people forfeit their rights say or the rights on another trump their. For instance, my right to safety in my own home trumps your right to live when you decide to enter my home uninvited. Your right to live is forfeited when the courts determine you are guilty of a capital crime. You have no right to vote.
“A person has (or should have) the right to vote, regardless of the policy for which he (or she) is voting or the policies advocated by the candidate for which he is voting.” No. As much as I would like for everybody to have the right to vote, voting is a responsibility and for everybody to have a right to vote means we live in mob rule.
“A person has the right to vote in favor of preventing another person from voting.” Not specifically, but indirectly. We have rules that cannot be used to prevent one from voting such as based on race, sex, intelligence, etc. But nothing in regards contribution to society or taxes.
“A person has the right to vote in favor of instituting a dictatorship in which voting would be abolished entirely.” Tough one, I would like to say no, but all democracies and republicans have done this very thing. That is why we hope their are constitutional controls that prevent it.
“To kill an innocent person deliberately would constitute a violation of his rights.” That depends on the definition of innocence. I don’t consider anybody who has violated my safety or that of my family innocent. And that would include entering my home with the sole intention of stealing. Because my definition of my rights trumping his might be at odds with others, we have laws and courts to sort it out.
“A person has the right to vote in favor of killing innocent people within his society.” No, but if the evidence presented supports guilt, than yes. That is why the burden of proof must have a high standard. Also, if at a later time evidence supporting innocence comes to light, it must be considered. Due care must also be taken when the death penalty is an option. It should not be a bargaining chip. The crime fits death, or it doesn’t.

Part B: With regard to Part A, are there particular answers or combinations of answers that you think are inconsistent with a coherent view of human rights? This is a loaded question. They all are, but this one is in my opinion over the top.
1

Part C: Can you draw any conclusions from the above about what forms of government might or might not be compatible with human rights? Gov’t is not compatible with absolute human rights. However, we can come close. A consititutional republic especially in its early stages.

Part D: Define the noun-concept “right.” Suggested format: “A right is a(n) granted by god or a higher power and as long as it does not tread on anothers right it is absolute.” If you think the word has more than one meaning, define its core (primary) meaning. Please don’t just quote from dictionaries; the idea is to convey YOUR thoughts.

I may (or may not) offer my own responses later in the thread.

TheForge · February 2, 2012, 3:10pm

I really wish I had your writing skills. I think I would avoid a lot of the flamewars I get into in forums if I did.

Eppur_si_muove · February 2, 2012, 3:28pm

In the case of self defense one has the right to violate the others right to life.

But would it really do so? IMO, the phrase “right to life” means just what it says: The right to live unimpeded and to act to support one’s own life. Your right to life doesn’t mean that if you choose instead to threaten the life of another person you have any right to expect that they won’t fight back. Therefore I don’t think killing a truly threatening criminal, if that’s the only form of effective self-defense, constitutes any violation of rights. No one ever took away the criminal’s option to live unimpeded and to act to support his own life; rather, he chose to go beyond that option.

Under a system where ones vote does not have the ability to infringe on anothers rights I see no reason why ones “Right to vote” should ever be infringed upon. OTOH under a system where votes are regularly cast toward the infringements of others rights I see the “Right to vote” as no longer a right and thus can and likely should be infringed upon.

It seems to me that what you’re saying is that that there can’t be any unrestricted “right to vote” (which is my view as well). That’s also clearly implied by your answers to statements 4 and 6.

Compatible, yes, recommended or “Best” I don’t think so.

So what forms of government do you think would be compatible or incompatible?

I belive there are “Non right Rights”. These typically boil down to people claiming they want something they don’t have and claiming it is “There right” to have these things. Many times these things require others to give up their rights in order for these individuals to have them and thus are not rights at all.

I would say simply that in such cases the people are claiming to see “rights” where they never existed in the first place.

Do I win a prize?

I’m not on the Nobel committee, but I do appreciate your taking the time to wrestle with some fairly challenging questions.

Eppur_si_muove · February 2, 2012, 3:40pm

For instance, my right to safety in my own home trumps your right to live when you decide to enter my home uninvited.

See my comments above to Matt re the right to life.

No. As much as I would like for everybody to have the right to vote, voting is a responsibility and for everybody to have a right to vote means we live in mob rule.

Agreed, although that’s not a popular view nowadays.

That depends on the definition of innocence. I don’t consider anybody who has violated my safety or that of my family innocent.

I don’t either. In fact, I think that’s pretty much what “innocent” means.

No, but if the evidence presented supports guilt, than yes. That is why the burden of proof must have a high standard.

Good point. Some of the statements should probably be reworded somewhat to recognize that there may be issues of uncertainty and/or burden of proof involved.

This is a loaded question. They all are, but this one is in my opinion over the top.

Well, of course they’re loaded. The point here is to generate thought.

“A right is a(n) granted by god or a higher power and as long as it does not tread on anothers right it is absolute.”

I think you inadvertently left out at least one word. That sentence doesn’t scan.

TheForge · February 2, 2012, 3:48pm

This is a loaded question. They all are, but this one is in my opinion over the top.

Well, of course they’re loaded. The point here is to generate thought.

“A right is a(n) granted by god or a higher power and as long as it does not tread on anothers right it is absolute.”

I think you inadvertently left out at least one word. That sentence doesn’t scan.

Question one, I considered it over the top because I couldn’t answer it without trapping myself. Or at least that was what I thought at the time.

Question two, remove the a(n).

MJuric · February 2, 2012, 4:01pm

IMO, the phrase “right to life” means just what it says: The right to live unimpeded and to act to support one’s own life.

I don’t think we have the “Right to live unimpeded” unless by impeded. Nature itself will put things in your way, naturally life is challenging and hard. If by “Unimpeded” you mean specific instances of government intervention and forceful interventions of others I would agree.

What you list above seems more like the “Right to free will” rather than the “Right to life”. I see these two as entirely different. The “Right to free will” being the ability to choose freely what you do while alive. The “Right to life” being exactly that, once alive, no one has the right to kill you, I.E. take your life.

That however brings up the dichotomy of self defense. In my little world I solve this conflict by what I consider to be the “Rights hierarchy”. When a condition occurs where two rights of equal value (Same level on the rights hierarchy) come in conflict it may be necessary for one of those rights to be infringed upon. In the case of self defense, since one is attempting to use force to violate the others “Right to life” the “Aggressor” created the condition and thus also forfeits his right to “Damage retribution”, thus the aggressor could be killed, there by having his “Right to life” infringed upon, but at the same time not having a need for “Restitution” by the the victim…yes it’s a theory, a work in progress as well.

I covered some of this in my discussions with theforge in one of the gun threads.

IMO this is the “Mechanical” reason for there being no reason to “Celebrate” the death of even an intruder. A condition existed with in the system that a right MUST be violated, which is NEVER a good thing…again, work in progress :-)…wait no smiley faces. Let’s say I’m over time developing this idea to try and see if there is a way to balance the human emotions with the mechanics of the systems of rights. Death being an inherent “Loss” to the species, must be equated to a “Loss” of “Failure” withing the mechanics of the “Systems of rights”. If the rights of one who is killed is also a failure to some degree in this system of rights then these two match.

This is just a theory, so I’m not saying it is or isn’t this way. I’m just seeing if I can see a place where the theory will fit.

It seems to me that what you’re saying is that that there can’t be any unrestricted “right to vote” (which is my view as well). That’s also clearly implied by your answers to statements 4 and 6.** **

Yes I would say that. The right to vote must be restricted or at least have the “Allowance” for the failures of the system in which the vote is taking place.

A “Free market” for instance is not always a “Free market” due to the unpredictable actions of the human species. The “Free market” makes “Allowances” for government intervention to purge the market of these actions.

I think the “Right to vote” must also make allowances for “Failures of the system” in which the vote is taking place.

So what forms of government do you think would be compatible or incompatible?** **

Compatible would be any system that allowed for the human “Right to life” and “Human right to free will” on a very basic level. Incompatible would be any system that did not allow for these freedoms.

With in this very broad range are all sorts of forms of government including our own “Mixed economy”.

However as I said I’m using “Compatible” in the sense of “Workable” not in the sense of “Complete lack of conflict” as I don’t think the latter is possible.

With in the “Compatible” category the “More compatible” forms of government would lean more toward a greater allowance of the afore mentioned rights and “Less compatible” would go the other way.

I would say simply that in such cases the people are claiming to see “rights” where they never existed in the first place.

Agree but wanted to have it out there as this is a definition often used for the word “Right”.

I’m not on the Nobel committee, but I do appreciate your taking the time to wrestle with some fairly challenging questions.

Well…it let procrastinate getting some work done so it was worth it.

~Matt ** **

Eppur_si_muove · February 2, 2012, 4:02pm

Question one, I considered it over the top because I couldn’t answer it without trapping myself.

That’s why I suggested that one could add an explanation if needed. I wasn’t trying to “trap” anyone. I merely wanted to encourage people to come up with self-consistent explanations of how they view rights and voting.

**Question two, remove the a(n). **

Okay, but then we’re left with a statement which isn’t necessarily wrong, but which doesn’t really tell us what a “right” is (although it does specify a couple of its attributes) and which is circular to boot.

BTW, what do you mean by “a higher power”? As an atheist, should I count “nature” as a “higher power”?

Eppur_si_muove · February 2, 2012, 4:19pm

If by “Unimpeded” you mean specific instances of government intervention and forceful interventions of others I would agree.

Yes, that’s what I meant.

In my little world I solve this conflict by what I consider to be the “Rights hierarchy”. When a condition occurs where two rights of equal value (Same level on the rights hierarchy) come in conflict it may be necessary for one of those rights to be infringed upon.

Sounds pretty complicated, especially since you’re going to have to define just how you determine the relative precedence of “conflicting” rights.

I prefer to define “rights” in such a way that the conflicts don’t arise in the first place. I suppose that would translate to the rights that “come out on top” in your scheme.

IMO this is the “Mechanical” reason for there being no reason to “Celebrate” the death of even an intruder.

You and I had a debate along these lines after the killing of OBL. I view the fact that the intruder decided to be an intruder as a cause for sorrow, but I view the fact that the homeowner acted to save his own life in the conflict, as well as the fact that others will not have to confront that intruder in the future, as causes for celebration. In any case, I do not believe that the homeowner has violated any legitimate right of the intruder.

The “Free market” makes “Allowances” for government intervention to purge the market of these actions.

I understand a “free market” to be one from which the initiation of force is excluded (or largely so). By that definition, defensive actions taken against aggressors (whether by the government or any other kind of defense agency) do not violate the market, so they really are not acts of “intervention.” Such acts constitute defensive force, not initiated force.

TheForge · February 2, 2012, 4:47pm

Higher power can be whatever you define it as. I believe in a diety, but am openminded enough to respect peoples athiestic views and not push my belief in diety on them. I would just hope an athiest would show me the same respect. In fact, at one time I was an athiest. It was after many years of sole searching that I came to believe in god.

MJuric · February 2, 2012, 4:52pm

I think we mostly agree…and I really should get some work done.

~Matt

Eppur_si_muove · February 2, 2012, 6:07pm

My own responses:

**Part A: For each of the statements below, indicate whether you agree or disagree. Include an explanation if you wish: **

1. “A person cannot have the right to take an action that would have the effect of violating the rights of another person.”

Agree. As I indicated above, I don’t consider that defending myself against an aggressor constitutes a violation of any of his legitimate rights. (Cf. Part D below.)

2. “A person has (or should have) the right to vote, regardless of the policy for which he (or she) is voting or the policies advocated by the candidate for which he is voting.”

Disagree.

3. “A person has the right to vote in favor of preventing another person from voting.”

Disagree (not because I don’t believe in voting qualifications, but because I don’t believe voting is a “right” per se).

4. “A person has the right to vote in favor of instituting a dictatorship in which voting would be abolished entirely.”

Disagree.

5. “To kill an innocent person deliberately would constitute a violation of his rights.”

Agree.

6. “A person has the right to vote in favor of killing innocent people within his society.”

Disagree.

Part B: With regard to Part A, are there particular answers or combinations of answers that you think are inconsistent with a coherent view of human rights?

First, a coherent view must be one in which rights don’t conflict with one another. That why you can’t have the right to violate someone else’s rights, a truth acknowledged in statement (1).

Second, if you believe there exists an unrestricted right to vote (2), then one logical conclusion is that one has the right to use voting to prevent another person from voting (3) or even to prevent an entire population from voting (4). Either of these conclusions would obviously violate statement (1). IOW, (2) is in fundamental conflict with (1). Consequently, under any coherent theory of rights, (1) has to be true and (2) has to be false. That means that there can be no unrestricted right to vote. In fact, I would argue that voting isn’t really a “right” at all, but rather a privilege that may be extended within certain circumstances by some forms of government.

Part C: Can you draw any conclusions from the above about what forms of government might or might not be compatible with human rights?

A pure democracy, in which people are permitted to vote for any measures they choose, is not compatible with human rights. A government limited by a constitution may be compatible with them, at least so far as can be determined from this discussion.

Part D: Define the noun-concept “right.”

A right is an ethical principle prohibiting interference with an individual’s freedom of action. Here the word “freedom” doesn’t refer to some unrestricted state of permissiveness, where you can rob, rape, pillage, and kill to your heart’s content. Rather, freedom is a state of human action in which the actor is not constrained by the coercion of others; I understand coercion to be a synonym for initiated force.

How does this apply to self-defense, which seems an issue for some in this thread? If self-defense is ethically justified, then obviously there can’t be an ethical principle prohibiting one from acting in self-defense, even if that may sometimes require killing an aggressor. (That is, it cannot be ethically right to do something and also ethically wrong to do it.) Therefore, by definition, killing in self-defense cannot violate any legitimate right of the aggressor, which means that his right to life cannot include a right to aggress against you in the first place.

I think this view is also consistent with theforge’s statement that a right is absolute as long as it does not tread on the rights of others (although I avoid the circularity, which was also noted by Rothbard).

MJuric · February 3, 2012, 2:58am

A right is an ethical principle prohibiting interference with an individual’s freedom of action.

Rather, freedom is a state of human action in which the actor is not constrained by the coercion of others;

Is “Being alive” an action or merely a state of being? My contention is that it is the latter and thus no “Action” exists for another to “Interfere with”.

Now maybe this point is semantics, or maybe it’s an incredibly important point, again I think the latter.

Clearly ones “State of being” can be interfered with and thus ones “Right to life” removed or infringed upon. However unlike all other rights, the right to freedom of expression, free speech, property ownership, et al, the “Right to life” takes no action on the part of the individual that this right is bestowed upon.

As far as I can see this is the only “Right” that takes no action on part of the “Owner of the right” and is the only right that can only be infringed upon by another taking action without the owner having had to take no action at all.

Again, this is more of a “Theory in progress” but to me it seems that it is this minor difference that makes this right the hierarchical top of the “Rights pyramid”

If self-defense is ethically justified, then obviously there can’t be an ethical principle prohibiting one from acting in self-defense, even if that may sometimes require killing an aggressor. (That is, it cannot be ethically right to do something and also ethically wrong to do it.) Therefore, by definition, killing in self-defense cannot violate any legitimate right of the aggressor,

I think this paragraph jumps to an unsupported conclusion based on the idea that a right can never be infringed upon and that infringing on any right is “Ethically wrong”. Furthermore it assumes, as above, that the “Owner of the right” must take “action”.

The “Aggressor” still has a “Right to life”. The mere act of being a criminal does not remove this right. If the defender shoots the person in the leg and immobilizes them the aggressor is still alive and still retains the right to live. The defender may even have a “Legal right” to kill the aggressor at this point, I would say they do not have an ethical right to do so.

The situation is that at the moment of aggression both individuals are “Fighting for their life”, thus both are fighting for their right to life. However due to the fact that one is the aggressor the defender has the stronger position in which to infringe upon the others right to life and thus will suffer no consequence for this infringement.

I think this view is also consistent with theforge’s statement that a right is absolute as long as it does not tread on the rights of others

So yes the right to life is absolute, however it can be infringed upon only under the condition in which that right is weighted against another right of equal weight. In the case of “Right to life” only against another “Life” can this infringement take place.

~Matt

SH · February 3, 2012, 3:37am

I don’t have time to respond to every question here. However, I think they are important questions. I also think that they make me happy to live in the United States. One of the key elements in the Constitution is that we are not just a democracy and that there are some things that cannot be simply voted away. Once our rights have been enacted into law – the constitution – we don’t have to worry ourselves so much with some people voting away the rights or lives of others.

AddysDaddy · February 14, 2012, 9:03pm

Part A: For each of the statements below, indicate whether you agree or disagree. Include an explanation if you wish:

“A person cannot have the right to take an action that would have the effect of violating the rights of another person.” No, you cannot violate the rights of another.
“A person has (or should have) the right to vote, regardless of the policy for which he (or she) is voting or the policies advocated by the candidate for which he is voting.” Yes, they should have the right to vote.
“A person has the right to vote in favor of preventing another person from voting.” ** No**.
“A person has the right to vote in favor of instituting a dictatorship in which voting would be abolished entirely.” No, because that would take the freedom of choice away from others.
“To kill an innocent person deliberately would constitute a violation of his rights.” Yes.
“A person has the right to vote in favor of killing innocent people within his society.” No.

Part B: With regard to Part A, are there particular answers or combinations of answers that you think are inconsistent with a coherent view of human rights?

Part C: Can you draw any conclusions from the above about what forms of government might or might not be compatible with human rights?

Part D: Define the noun-concept “right.” Suggested format: “A right is a(n) ______.” If you think the word has more than one meaning, define its core (primary) meaning. Please don’t just quote from dictionaries; the idea is to convey YOUR thoughts.

I may (or may not) offer my own responses later in the thread.

Eppur_si_muove · February 14, 2012, 9:08pm

How do you reconcile your answers to #2 and #3 logically? Doesn’t statement #2 imply that a person has the right to vote for a policy that prevents another from voting?

AddysDaddy · February 14, 2012, 9:24pm

How do you reconcile your answers to #2 and #3 logically? Doesn’t statement #2 imply that a person has the right to vote for a policy that prevents another from voting?

You have a good point…I am having a rough day as I have been fighting through insominia and I am at work. You probably will not get the best debating skill out of me today.

There are things that should be verbotten, basic rights, you should have the ability to vote and be REPRESENTED in the government, period. Removing this freedom takes away peoples right of choice. Though I do not think that there should be a mob rule. That we float to the wishes of the majority.

It cannot be black and white on every issue. We have to have a good framework to work around. What is off limits and what is not.

.

torrey · February 14, 2012, 9:25pm

That’s why we have a judiciary. You have the right to vote for such things (and the legislators can try to create similar laws), but those things are unconstitutional.

TheForge · February 14, 2012, 9:25pm

How do you reconcile your responses in 1 and 2 for that matter. Because we know the history on why you are here, it is fair game to ask the following. Doesn’t your response in item two imply that a person can vote to take things away from another by direct or indirect force like taxation or siezure (emminent domain) or vote yourself largess at the cost of another? And in such a case are you not violating anothers rights?