What rights does every human have? And do these rights change with age

1. 0

   threekeysposted 6 years ago

   Could you elaborate with some examples please.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "Rights" implies a guarantor - an entity, whether nature, God, government, parent or other, that supplies and guarantees each and every right.
      
      While it is common practice to refer to "God given" rights (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness come to mind) there is no entity that will guarantee every person has them and thus they are not "rights" at all, but instead a philosophical ideal that a person or group of persons strive towards.
      
      Government provided "rights" (free health care, sufficient food or housing, free speech, freedom from discrimination as examples) vary enormously with the government and society to the point that they cannot be considered a universal right to every human.  If you wish a specific, socially provided, "right" then choose a society that guarantees it for you.
      
      That pretty much leaves the "rights" that you can take and enforce for yourself and about all that class contains is the right to die.  There has never been a human that did not have that right and, eventually, exercise it.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         threekeysposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         There are some good distinctions you make. No you cannot guarantee rights. I have believed that because I belong to a western country and a supposed democratic country that I have rights as an adult. For the last eleven years I have had my first look in to what and how power is used. The rights I assumed I had  as a average person, pretty well blocked. Its frightening. I hate to think what it would be like in non democratic country. No one teaches you as a young person how to deal with such situations. I feel it is crucial as we head off into the future.

         replyreport
   2. 57

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      As wilderness said, "'Rights' implies a guarantor" with which and I agree. However, the fact that all beings are predestined to be exactly what/who they and CAN NOT be changed. Karma is the "guarantor" that predestined each to a physical "lot in life" that can not change unless it has already been predestined.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Predestination is an old, old concept, but it has yet to be shown to have any connection to reality, and in fact discoveries in the past few years seem to indicate events happening at random, with no cause at all.  If true (and further research/study is necessary) it would very effectively eliminate the theory.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            That is also true, Wilderness, and depends on whether you cater to only one or a few disciplines that can be studied. I don't discard any source as invalid since my observations reveals there is something in every discipline tying them all together. It's like the saying "there are many paths at the base of the mountain of enlightenment that merges leaving the path to the apex single" reveals, what the diverse disciplines at the base presented is present in the apex's tip. What that means is, if we discount anything in human beliefs we can never reach enlightenment.
            
            Because I enlist concepts from every discipline in how I explain existence I see inner connecting factors includes "predestination appears random" but by including laws from other sources, such as "everything repeats itself in cycles" and "karma" predestination is proven a fact.

            replyreport
2. 81

   holliesandhealthposted 6 years ago

   There are a few universal laws that many governments say their citizens have, though of course even that can vary. For example, the right to life(I.e don't murder) is one, and the right to happiness is another one. One way to look at it is through the lens of the UN which states that all countries have a right to equality, liberty, and freedom. Gonna poke fun at America here because ironically will still struggle to do just that.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      threekeysposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I had momentarily forgotten about the UN. How much power do they have to influence the countries? No matter I am very glad for the UN. To equality, liberty and freedom. There seems to be a movement away from these now in our democratic countries. We cant have the era of Hitler again

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         The UN is not concerned with liberty and freedom; only equality.  And that means that the "haves" must reduce what they have by giving it to the "have nots".

         replyreport
         1. 0

            threekeysposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Equality is then better than nothing.
            Why cant you share 'a little " of your extra of your build to give someone a opprtunity to get back up on their feet.
            Some people are bereft of luck-people and well placed connections. Not everyone is a taker, a con artist, to "get what they want/need in life".

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               "Why cant you share 'a little " of your extra of your build to give someone a opprtunity to get back up on their feet."
               
               Wrong question.  Right question, the one really being asked: "Why do you object to others that take what they wish from you, to do with as they wish?"
               
               It is one thing to believe that you should help others in need; it is quite another to believe you have an innate, moral right to force a third person to do it for you, and against their will.  The two have no connection at all, and while one is admirable the other is not.  Robin Hood was not a hero, but a common thief.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  threekeysposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  wilderness I am clearer upon you view. All good.

                  replyreport
3. 65

   Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years ago

   The right to think.

   replyreport
4. 82

   jackclee lmposted 6 years ago

   I have to disagree. The US preamble to the Declaration of independence,  states Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...as unalienable rights. 
   On the question of equality, it is interpreted as “equality of opportunity” and not “equality of outcome” meaning we are all treated equally in the eyes of the law but it does not mean we could all buy a house and drive a fine car...

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      And you can hope, if you live in the US, that the government will guarantee that right.  If you live in other countries they may not - "liberty" for instance, is not universally guaranteed and cannot be a "human right". 
      
      Might think about an "inalienable right" to liberty for those in prison, too.  It doesn't seem as "inalienable" as it sounds when the same government that guarantees it takes it away.

      replyreport
   2. 57

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Jackclee, I don't believe it is supposed to be interpreted as “equality of opportunity” once we understand the Preamble as the following presents it.
      
      With the Preamble reading “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” revealing what the entire document intends to achieve the first requirement is to correctly interpret it phrase by phrase.
      
      “We The People of the united States” are every man, baby, child or adolescent [aka prepubescent man], boys and girls [pubescent man], born in this nation or immigrants who received citizenship status and any Native American who chose to live outside of their Independent State their Treaties made with the United States’ granted them to make the United States their nation of choice.
      
      The phrase “in Order to” is required to be before each of the six intended achievements to be accomplished by the document that makes them read with interpretations as …
      
      “In Order to form a more perfect Union” which cannot be done by making differences between people, political figures, governmental servants, security agencies and judges that include lawyers, police and sheriffs, nor because of genders, ethnic groups, physical abilities, secret societies, sexual orientations, workers unions or other organizations and social titles endowed by schooling:
      
      “In Order to establish Justice” means to provide proper compensation for actions; which having different compensations for politicians, government agencies including police and judges, or because of classes, genders, ethnic groups, physical abilities, secret societies, sexual orientations, unions or other organizations and other social title schools endow does not do:
      
      “In Order to insure domestic Tranquility” requires eliminating grieving because of other’s disrespecting behaviors which is impossible while allowing bulling sexual orientations, ethnics groups, physical abilities, religions and any other appearance to be bullied for any reasons:
      
      “In Order to provide for the common defense” protects this nation's people, land, plants, resources and animated life forms from any destruction without a justified cause because they are all equally dependent on each other and that can no be done defending foreign territories:
      
      “In Order to promote the general Welfare” means the well being of all of the environment's entities is shared equally for maintaining all lifes survival. It is impossible to promote in a system that destroys the environment and makes differences in workers’ compensation since every position is required for the company’s desired results, excluding company’s wealth. A general and equal welfare system cannot be achieved except in a service for survival type government as the Natives had before the United States of America's formation:
      
      “And in Order to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” means for the people of that time and future generations. There is no liberty when governors, security agencies, police, judges, lawyers have a different standard of freedoms than allowed the people they are trustees of.
      
      “Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” insinuates all of the people herein are equal. It is stating We the People have agreed to be governed by both genders and all ethnic backgrounds of man we chose from among ourselves and trust for maintaining the document’s standard of governing. It is an unbreakable contract between the governed and the governors less the governors are removed by the governed for any misdemeanor, high crime [felony], bribery or treason breach of contract Amendment 10 and Article 2.4 demands. It also imply when governors reach their service limit they are We the People again as they were prior to serving otherwise nothing is perfected except the multitude of divisions herein today.
      
      By that interpretation and since the earth is a living entity [earth's soil, gem stones, oil and gas are living entities and included] I believe it means "no being is supposed to impose on another living being except in absolute surviving requirements."

      replyreport
5. 87

   Lew Marcrumposted 6 years ago

   There are no "rights".  And even any illusory concept of an unalienable right comes with an attached obligation.  There is no "liberty", and certainly no "right to happiness".  Nearly every strongman who has ever come to power in the world has done so while proclaiming he has liberated the people he has in reality conquered.  Liberty is in most societies merely a term for minimal governmental interference while the masses work for the support of the elites who do nothing but collect.  Even Kim Jong-un claims the North Korean people have liberty in his Democratic Peoples' Republic.  In reality it is neither democratic, a republic nor does it belong to the people, but it is a warm and fuzzy term which keeps him a notch higher in the eyes of the rest of the world. 
   
   Even life itself is not a universal right, as witnessed by such lunatics as  Pol Pot, the “Final Solution” and innumerable genocides in Africa, as well as over sixty million deaths in the US alone through genocide of the unborn in the name of “choice”.  Life is a right within a government only if you meet the accepted criteria put in place by the elites in charge.  Certainly some “undesirables” are tolerated solely to placate other hypocritical world observers. 
   
   You have a universal right to the PURSUIT of happiness so long as that pursuit benefits the powers above.  You have a right to work and earn money with which you can buy food, homes and other things that make you happy, but only if you give a part of those earnings to the presidents, kings and drones who live off your toil.  Refusal to pay governmental extortion will see your liberties quickly evaporate. 
   
   Governments are a necessary evil because humans are herd animals who are incapable of individual self-government, and someone has to provide public infrastructure and military protection.  Though in ages past that was done on the unwilling backs of the same populace paying exorbitant taxes to the politicians.  Anarchy can never work because greedy and belligerent mankind will kill his neighbor and take what that neighbor has worked to obtain.  Someone with power must guarantee the peoples' right to life and liberty, but only so long as that people toe's the line and pays their dues to the drones.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Lew, you are VERY correct under "human controlled governing" but with man living ecologically ALL life-types have the right to exist and protect their specie WHILE also being food for another.

      replyreport
6. 59

   paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

   The way nature is constructed, no living entity has any rights; just like non-living entities.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Paradigm Search, There is nothing in existence which isn't alive and consuming something else, it is only our limited understanding that allows us the shortsighted view.
      
      Example: metals are alive and when they consume certain glasses [oxidation it is called] they return to their pure state as ore but when heat eats into it it returned the metals to the form where human are able to use it until oxidation takes over again.

      replyreport
7. 91

   blueheronposted 6 years ago

   You could look at the idea of individual "rights" in either a governmental context, or in a social context.
   
   Socially, humans are somewhere between herd animals (like buffalo) and pack animals (like wolves). What this really means is that our survival as a species relies heavily on cooperative groups. But--more like wolves--our survival, and the survival of our group, also depends heavily on individual initiative. So, in human social groups, there is an ongoing dynamic tension between the group's claims on the individual, and the survival-driven need for individual group members to have a fairly high degree of autonomy.
   
   To say that individuals have "rights" is, I think, an attempt to give this dynamic definition at the level of consciousness--as opposed to the level of instinct. The idea of individual "rights" operates mostly as a constraint against the group's demands on the individual. Where a group places these constraints--where they draw the line as far as controlling the individual--is a group decision. The group (presumably) makes this decision, of how much individual liberty will be permitted versus how much social constraint and cohesion will be demanded, based on how they expect it to impact group survival.
   
   There are obviously situations that demand very high levels of group constraint and cohesion, along with very low levels of individual initiative--such as military operations. Group cohesion tends to be the overarching value whenever the group is threatened. In the absence of an outside threat, a group will usually decide that the greatest benefits to the group will accrue by permitting a very high degree of individual autonomy and initiative. A group also has to be fairly prosperous to allow any very high degree of individual risk-taking; they have to be able to absorb the loss if a group member's innovative activity goes south. Yet a group that wishes to progress economically MUST encourage individual autonomy, innovation, and initiative to the fullest extent that it is able.
   
   So, socially, I would say that "rights" are an ever-changing dynamic.

   replyreport
8. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   If God is not involved, there are no rights.

   replyreport
9. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   If God is involved, there are rights.
   
   Only God guarantees self-guided free will.
   
   When a society looses touch with the belief in Lord/Father/Creator/Mighty Triple O, good luck with that.

   replyreport