The most important Rights of Man

[philosopher]

Do you agree with me in saying that the right to inactivity is the most important right of all rights?

Examples of this could be the right to refuse conscription - wether it be military as well as alternative service.

Summed and generalized I would say:

The state should never enforce any obligation to participate in any particular activity - no matter what!

Examples of obligation to participate in a particular activity includes:

Work duty (if you do not work you're punished, ie. by imprisonment).
Conscription (if you do not become conscript you're punished, ie. by imprisonment).
Jury Duty (if you do not become a jury when selected, you're punished, ie. by imprisonment).

I say all of the above are ethically immoral, wrong and should be banned!

[QuantumT]

I concur.

In fact it's the only right I'd die to protect. Nobody tells me what to do, or how to treat my own body. Nobody!

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

The state should never enforce any obligation to participate in any particular activity - no matter what!

I think it is important. This mentality is why I'm against 'good samaritan' laws in general. Although, my intuitions contradict this a bit, because I do feel like someone should be lawfully obliged to report a terrorist attack if they know something is going to happen. This is why they initially detained the Pulse shooter's wife. In this most extreme example, I sort of feel like it was right, but I also wouldn't want this to extend to just any serious crime.

[henry quirk]

"The most important Rights of Man..."

...are those he claims for himself and successfully defends.

[Impenitent]

the most important rights are the other lefts

-Imp

[FlashDangerpants]

The state should never enforce any obligation to participate in any particular activity - no matter what!

So no obligation to get an education?
Murderers should not be obliged to participate in their trial, or to hang around in the prison they didn't agree to attend?
If a heart surgeon gets bored halfway through an operation and walks away, leaving his patient to bleed out, no crime has been committed?

At this point, I don't know from what you've written which of these is a wild exaggeration of your position.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

The state should never enforce any obligation to participate in any particular activity - no matter what!

So no obligation to get an education?
Murderers should not be obliged to participate in their trial, or to hang around in the prison they didn't agree to attend?
If a heart surgeon gets bored halfway through an operation and walks away, leaving his patient to bleed out, no crime has been committed?

At this point, I don't know from what you've written which of these is a wild exaggeration of your position.

The problem with those two things you list is that they're the cause for those events. It's not just a complete lack of activity, although I can see why his statement leaves the door wide open. But I think it's pretty clear that he didn't mean we should get rid of all responsibility.

[FlashDangerpants]

The state should never enforce any obligation to participate in any particular activity - no matter what!

So no obligation to get an education?
Murderers should not be obliged to participate in their trial, or to hang around in the prison they didn't agree to attend?
If a heart surgeon gets bored halfway through an operation and walks away, leaving his patient to bleed out, no crime has been committed?

At this point, I don't know from what you've written which of these is a wild exaggeration of your position.

The problem with those two things you list is that they're the cause for those events. It's not just a complete lack of activity, although I can see why his statement leaves the door wide open. But I think it's pretty clear that he didn't mean we should get rid of all responsibility.

You say that, but he blithely equated jury duty and conscription so I'm not holding out much hope for his underlying thought.
The purpose of those insane interpretations is either.... to force him to think his whole thing through properly, and return with something more than an infinitely open ended slogan. Or else to have him conced something he thinks is small that lets me force him to give up thejury duty thing and generally emasculate his slogan for him.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

So no obligation to get an education?
Murderers should not be obliged to participate in their trial, or to hang around in the prison they didn't agree to attend?
If a heart surgeon gets bored halfway through an operation and walks away, leaving his patient to bleed out, no crime has been committed?

At this point, I don't know from what you've written which of these is a wild exaggeration of your position.

The problem with those two things you list is that they're the cause for those events. It's not just a complete lack of activity, although I can see why his statement leaves the door wide open. But I think it's pretty clear that he didn't mean we should get rid of all responsibility.

You say that, but he blithely equated jury duty and conscription so I'm not holding out much hope for his underlying thought.

I think those two things can be equated to each other. When I say responsibility, I mean you can't be the cause for something, and then choose to not do anything.

[Immanuel Can]

"The most important Rights of Man..."

...are those he claims for himself and successfully defends.

How does one "defend" a right, Henry, other than by some use of force -- at least force of resistance?

But we all lose ability to apply force as we grow older or sicker: so then we may still claim the same rights, but can no longer "successfully defend" them. Does that then imply we no longer possess those rights? Or does it mean they are no longer "important" when we "claim" them?

Just wondering.

[henry quirk]

"How does one "defend" a right, Henry, other than by some use of force -- at least force of resistance?"

You don't, you can't.

#

"But we all lose ability to apply force as we grow older or sicker: so then we may still claim the same rights, but can no longer "successfully defend" them. Does that then imply we no longer possess those rights? Or does it mean they are no longer "important" when we "claim" them?"

A simple example, Mannie: if you can't successfully fend off the guy who wants your wallet, you're gonna lose your wallet.

if you're like me, that won't be the end of it (somebody's gonna die...mebbe me, mebbe him, but no friggin' way is he walkin' away with what's mine).

If you're like most people, you'll call the cops after the mugging, hopin' the police can help restore you.

Either way: somebody is applyin' force.

As for the personal value of a right, obviously, it's personal, subjective. What I value may not be what Joe values which may not be what Ellen values and so on.

For example: a whole whack of folks seems to value 'safety' over 'autonomy'. That is: they're willing to accept a level of regulation and direction if that regulation/direction means they can live with their guard down. Good on them, I say. Not so good on 'me', however. I always skew toward autonomy (cuz my safety is my concern, my business).

Anyway, yeah, without 'force' (expended personally or through a proxy) 'rights' don't mean diddly.

[Immanuel Can]

A simple example, Mannie: if you can't successfully fend off the guy who wants your wallet, you're gonna lose your wallet.

Obviously. Yes.

if you're like me, that won't be the end of it (somebody's gonna die...mebbe me, mebbe him, but no friggin' way is he walkin' away with what's mine).

If you're like most people, you'll call the cops after the mugging, hopin' the police can help restore you.

Either way: somebody is applyin' force.

As for the personal value of a right, obviously, it's personal, subjective. What I value may not be what Joe values which may not be what Ellen values and so on....Anyway, yeah, without 'force' (expended personally or through a proxy) 'rights' don't mean diddly.

Okay: but that raises this question. Why call it a "right"? What additional information is supposed to be suggested by that word, beyond a mere power-struggle?

For example, if someone takes my wallet, I may say, "Take this, you blighter" and punch his lights out, and take my wallet back. But I haven't needed to declare my rights. Or, as you say, I may call the cops and let them do it for me. But if I do, I'll need to know why policemen are morally and professionally obligated to support my desire to retain my property over the blighter's desire to acquire it.

So what use has "rights" talk got, if power is all that's at work?

For example: a whole whack of folks seems to value 'safety' over 'autonomy'. That is: they're willing to accept a level of regulation and direction if that regulation/direction means they can live with their guard down. Good on them, I say. Not so good on 'me', however. I always skew toward autonomy (cuz my safety is my concern, my business).

Yeah, except as you know, they don't just want to live with THEIR guard down: they want to obligate you to live with YOURS down too. And they want to call you a "bad person," a "neanderthal" or a "bigot" if you decide that's not what you want. So it's fine for us, since we like autonomy; but having those "whack of folks" around means our desire for autonomy is going to be curtailed by means of their politics.

One thing they cannot stand is anybody who opts out of their authoritarian plans for "the good society," as they conceive it. Autonomy is the opposite of their plans.

[henry quirk]

None at all. That's why I don''t spend a lotta time worryin' about my 'rights'.

#

"if someone takes my wallet, I may say, "Take this, you blighter" and punch his lights out, and take my wallet back. But I haven't needed to declare my rights."

No, you didn't have to declare in advance. The act of fighting back 'is' the declaration.

#

"I'll need to know why policemen are morally and professionally obligated to support my desire to retain my property over the blighter's desire to acquire it."

Cuz you pay them (more). And -- mebbe -- they're of like-mind.

#

"having those "whack of folks" around means our desire for autonomy is going to be curtailed by means of their politics."

Mebbe. Or you can just say 'fuck you' and see how it plays out (I'm thinkin' folks like you and me are gonna be seein' 'how it plays out' fairly soon).

#

"One thing they cannot stand is anybody who opts out of their authoritarian plans for "the good society," as they conceive it. Autonomy is the opposite of their plans."

Fuck 'em.

[Immanuel Can]

(I'm thinkin' folks like you and me are gonna be seein' 'how it plays out' fairly soon).

I'd bet you're right.

[Arising_uk]

...

One thing they cannot stand is anybody who opts out of their authoritarian plans for "the good society," as they conceive it. Autonomy is the opposite of their plans.

This more than funny from Mr Can as he is all about a 'God' with an idea of a 'good society' who if one goes against 'its' authority will burn one for eternity.