They do not exist. Nobody has any. The only reason we seem to have some is due to the fact that all the productive people in the country are stolen from so that these 'rights' can be upheld.
To say that one group of humans has the right to anything surely must be a consistant and universal principle. If you say you have the right to something then everyone has that right, right? I believe that anybody who believes they have inalienable rights as the constitution denotes, these people automatically believe in violence. Do you believe you have inalienable rights?
To have inalienable rights implicates the duty of someone to uphold the rights for you, eg Gardai. This traditionally comes in the form of a state and by the force, which is usually a monopolistic force, wielded on the people who pay for the bars which their 'rights' are situated ie.'Rep Of Ireland'
Can anyone point at their rights?
Having 'rights' implies that you are being controlled and are being granted certain arbitrary privilages.
Do you have any rights and if so can you tell me how they come about and where there is no violence involved if they are taken away from you?
Hey Bobby D, thanks for starting off an interesting topic of discussion. I agree with some of the points you raise but would like some clarification on some others just to be sure where your coming from.
I'm not too clear on what this means? Are you referring to the wealthy class when you say: "The only reason we seem to have some is due to the fact that all the productive people in the country are stolen from so that these 'rights' can be upheld."?
When you talk of 'Rights' what do you mean exactly? Are you specifically referring to the rights set out in the Constitution i.e. by the state and the granting of 'arbitrary privilages' and how the State have pledged to uphold and 'vindicate' the rights of the citizen - or are you referring to rights in general?
Is it a true statement that "To have inalienable rights implicates the duty of someone to uphold the rights for you"? Does mere belief in inalienable rights implicate, or is it somehow dependant upon someone else to uphold these on your behalf...? I disagree. I agree that this is the way things are now...and doing things 'traditionally' isn't working and is somewhat of a cop-out. And while the 'system' has failed in it's function I cannot agree that this somehow negates the concept of 'rights' in general. However I do think the concept has been over-complicated under the system of 'States'.
I also agree that under the current system as participating citizens we are afforded certain arbitrary privliges but in doing so we in fact give up our rights and in so doing are essentially saying to the mammy state that 'we need you', 'i am not capable of thinking and acting for myself so please tell me what i can and cannot do...'. If these are the rights you refer to in your post than i wholeheartedly agree with you because by accepting the privilges we endorse the whole scam and are complicit therefore, aqcuiesing to a system that is fueled at the root by force and intimidation. So yes, I would say people in support of the system in that regard, accepting the benifits and duties can be said to be participating and supporting; at least obliquely, in violence, intimidation and plunder. However 'inalienable' means: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another, so these rights can only be waived, they remain dormant if they are not used but never extinct.
That being said, if considering the concept in it's original form, before the construct of statehood took shape as it has today, and before it was over-complicated with layers of complexity, I think a 'Right' can be easier understood having considered it's opposite (no not a left ha ha ;-): a 'Wrong' defined as:incorrect: not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth; contrary to conscience or morality or law; "it is wrong for the rich to take advantage of the poor"; "cheating is wrong"; "it is wrong to lie"
As an exerise, instead of thinking what are my rights, think is there anything wrong with an action I want to undertake, i.e. will my action cause harm, loss, injury or damage to another, will my actions adverseley and negatively affect another to the extent that I might 'take away' something(?) from them...?
So I would say that you have a right to do absolutley anything, you are in a position of 'rightness' with your actions by default. If we truly want to be peaceful than we should be considerate of our neighbour/fellow man. So yes you can do anything until such time as you have 'wronged' another... you can only know you've wronged another, just as another can only know that they've wronged you when it is expressed as such.
Following that trail of thought, you have a right to play music as loudly as you want at any hour of the morning, (putting aside the fact that this could already be construed as inconsiderate) - you have a right to do so until such time as a neighbour who is adversely or directly affected by your actions expresses this to you. Once it is expressed we are in Law making territory because if you continue to disregard your neighbours right to a quiet nights sleep you do so knowlingly, and are aware that you are causing a 'wrong' or harming another - Now this is not to say that all someone has to do is 'express' something and your rights are gone, no, not at all - your rights remain but it now becomes about finding a common ground with your neighbour - a mutual agreement from which to go forward - for e.g. Weekends are ok to blast your music but not during the week... sound fair? then shake on it - contract formed - this becomes the law of the involved parties and all this can be done without the meddling of mammy state! - Also when we sort our issues out like this, man to man we are taking a stream of revenue from the courts and by proxy the state and are as such reducing it's efficacy in using force by withdrawing our energy, and asserting our rights ouselves in our sovereign capacity.
sorry for the delay in responding. As you're talking about the Statist system in general and 'rights that are given out' to people than I completely agree. Fundamentally and at the heart of it the state is fuelled by force. Whatever 'party' gets into power wields the force of the state which they can use to implement any of their policies. They can pretty much do whatever they like provided it is within the parameters of the constitution. In bunreacht the State acknowledges and lists certain rights but the words 'imparticular' implies there are other rights that are not actually listed e.g. the right to marry. The State however, does not claim to 'give' us these rights, they are invincible and ancient and superior to all positive law i.e. law written down, which as you'd assume includes the Constitution, so in this sense the 'concept of rights' are higher than any man made 'written' laws. I for one don't consider the constitution a 'sacred document' and i don't know too many that do. It is however the document which outlines the functions and parameters of the states power, as it exists today.
So if you take my earlier description of 'rights' as being opposed to 'wrongs' and take the example of Marriage. I'm sure it's obvious to many that you, if you wish, have an inherent right to marry, then it's obvious that you can do this without the interference of the State and; if the State was to interfere it would be clear that this is a 'wrong' and an violation of your 'right'. You say that property rights are inviolable, and I agree, but I would add where is the distinction and who is to judge? who is to say which rights are and are not inviolable and what's the litmus test? However I do agree that these rights (particularly property) cannot be protected without resorting to force/violence. You may have property but what's to stop someone taking that off you if there's no 'State' of Policey FORCE to uphold and protect them? If someone tries to take your property how are you to protect it without either resorting to violence yourself, or calling on the force of the State to assist you? In this context I agree with you.
We had a system of jurisprudence in Ireland that existed for millenia without a 'State' to enforce it. Custom distinguished the tuatha from one another but the 'Law' united them under a sense of nationhood. The Law wasn't enforced it was 'upheld' and done so with a sense of rightness and justice. There are many depictions of the Irish 'love of the law' in ancient writings of historians who visited the Island, where 'both parties always came away pleased'. It wasn't an adversarial system of opponents battling it out with a referee (judge) - it was about 'setting things right', restoring the wrong caused. The 'system' if you could call it that, was fundamentally built on fairness. It was a time when a mans 'word' was respected - a mans word/oath was his bond. It was a time when 'reputation' was far more important than 'status'. This might all sound a bit ideological and it's not to say it didn't have problems of it's own (violence included) but on all accounts it was a much more just system than what we have. Some people may argue that society is too far 'gone' to make something like that work again, I would be reluctant to underestimate the human potential for adaption. I know a 'regression' to an older system is not workable as such, but an update and adaption of our current system, drawing on the strengths of the older ways certainly is.
What alternatives do you think are solutions to our current Statist system?
Also in your opinion would you say violence is ever justfiable? (Such as in a defensive manner e.g. to protect ones property rights)
Once again sorry for the delay, it was in the back of my mind for ages ... :-P
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, and putting a call out to other members to join in and share their 2c's
Siochan agus saoirse daoibh go léir