Originally Posted by Ribeye

There is no such thing as a right to food, or a right to shelter!

well, it depends whether you are thinking positive or negative rights - knowing your views I suspect negative, which is fair. P.J. O'Rourke on his visit to Cuba remarked that all Cubans have the Right to a house of their own - as long as they build it and pay for it. Which, when you think about it, is exactly the same right you or I have to shelter, in nasty Capitalist countries

Originally Posted by ManUnited

Supreme courts all over the world disagree with you.Even the Irish supreme court has read a right to shelter into the constitution.Implying rights from expressed constitutional rights is common practice.Have a look at our constitution and see where it says you have a right to bodily integrity or the right to the presumption of innocence.You wont find them because they are not there.The right to be presumed innocent is implied in the right to due process. Read Ryan v AG, just google it, it is a seminal case in Irish law.(skip all the stuff about fluoridating water as it is irrelevant and boring).
Anyway I was talking generally and you are trying to squirm out of your absurd position, still off topic for a thread about freedom of speech.

Supreme courts and The Constitution are man made constructs,

I didn't get my rights from any man, or govt,

And no man, nor govt can take them away!

Originally Posted by Tim Johnston

well, it depends whether you are thinking positive or negative rights - knowing your views I suspect negative, which is fair. P.J. O'Rourke on his visit to Cuba remarked that all Cubans have the Right to a house of their own - as long as they build it and pay for it. Which, when you think about it, is exactly the same right you or I have to shelter, in nasty Capitalist countries

Hey, don't get me wrong Tim,

When the geeks get their fingers out and finally invent Replicator machines,

I'll be all on for positive rights,

Until than, I'm gonna stick negative ones,

I like guns me, just don't like them being pointed at people

Originally Posted by Ribeye

Hey, don't get me wrong Tim,

When the geeks get their fingers out and finally invent Replicator machines,

I'll be all on for positive rights,

Until than, I'm gonna stick negative ones,

I like guns me, just don't like them being pointed at people

Originally Posted by Tim Johnston

well, it depends whether you are thinking positive or negative rights - knowing your views I suspect negative, which is fair. P.J. O'Rourke on his visit to Cuba remarked that all Cubans have the Right to a house of their own - as long as they build it and pay for it. Which, when you think about it, is exactly the same right you or I have to shelter, in nasty Capitalist countries

All rights are positive rights, in that they require some form of resource distribution, whether its enforcing private property or providing taxpayer funded safety nets. The perceived difference is really more to do with semantics than anything else. In the absence of a right to enforcement of private property for example, the right is purely an aspiration and is rendered meaningless.

In reality, rights are non-existent. David Hume was one of many philosophers who demolished the notion of "natural rights".

Originally Posted by pragmaticapproach

In reality, rights are non-existent. David Hume was one of many philosophers who demolished the notion of "natural rights".

He tried to.

Originally Posted by pragmaticapproach

All rights are positive rights, in that they require some form of resource distribution, whether its enforcing private property or providing taxpayer funded safety nets. The perceived difference is really more to do with semantics than anything else. In the absence of a right to enforcement of private property for example, the right is purely an aspiration and is rendered meaningless.

In reality, rights are non-existent. David Hume was one of many philosophers who demolished the notion of "natural rights".

That's a fair argument, PA. And you are right in that it could be considered absurd to talk about 'natural rights' and certainly right in that having rights is pointless unless there is an active legal and governing system to enforce those rights. I think the difference is more than semantic though. I mean, I could argue that my right to express myself freely without harassment is more 'natural' than my supposed right to be given shelter and medical care by a governing body, funded by the taxation of others. You may say the difference is in degree rather than in kind but there has to be a reason why many people consider those different kinds of rights. It may be artificial, you could say.

I could tentatively suggest that my right to bodily integrity, freedom from harm and harassment, imprisonment, etc. depend on there not being others who want to do those things to me, but since there are others like that then I need government protection against them (although, ironically, it's mostly governments that do those things!), which requires positive state-sanctioned action. One can also argue that my right to own private property is absolute and which ownership only requires the threat of punitive action by the state to maintain it, with, on rare occasion, protection by force against theft or harm.

So, in short - and I'm far from having thought this through - my natural rights could be considered those I would possess in the absence of others willing to take them away, whereas my made-up or non-natural rights would be those I can possess only by having the State intervene on my behalf pinching things from others.

Demolish theory at will ...

I was considering starting a thread on this recently so glad its here. My thread was going to concern the decades-long assault on freedom of speech by the OIC. I read today with surprise and pleasure that the OIC are now officially abandoning this effort to have the UN offically 'sanctify' Islam.

West's free speech stand bars blasphemy ban: OIC | Reuters

Originally Posted by Kevin Parlon

I was considering starting a thread on this recently so glad its here. My thread was going to concern the decades-long assault on freedom of speech by the OIC. I read today with surprise and pleasure that the OIC are now officially abandoning this effort to have the UN offically 'sanctify' Islam.

West's free speech stand bars blasphemy ban: OIC | Reuters

Yes, that's great news. Now the question becomes whether we in western societies can resist our own vocal minorities.

Originally Posted by pragmaticapproach

All rights are positive rights, in that they require some form of resource distribution, whether its enforcing private property or providing taxpayer funded safety nets. The perceived difference is really more to do with semantics than anything else. In the absence of a right to enforcement of private property for example, the right is purely an aspiration and is rendered meaningless.

In reality, rights are non-existent. David Hume was one of many philosophers who demolished the notion of "natural rights".

Hume is by a long shot my favourite philosopher. I love his natural scepticism, he refusal to take refuge in dogmas, and his sense of pragmatism. But I don't think he is on the balls about natural rights, or even about morality in general. There were plenty who came after him who took a different view, so I don't think we can say he demolished it. That being said, I don't think that natural rights is the kind of philosophy that answers all questions either. But it does have at least the virtue of being grounded in who we are and what we can do. It is not great at explaining moral difference between cultures, but I have found a lot of these differences to be not as deep as they first appear- for example lots of cultures argue about when it is right and wrong to kill, but they at the very least recognize that there is a right or wrong involved.

Sligo Today News for Sligo County - Sligo Solicitor Can Identify Anonymous Defamers

Sligo Solicitor Can Identify Anonymous Defamers.......

It is expected that there will be plenty of solicitors from all over Ireland eager to contact Mr. Tansey when he has possession of the files from Dotster Inc. Some of the solicitors will have scores to settle and will be delighted to at last positively identify their defamers and possibly extract hefty damages from them.

Why would the Plaintiff be entitlted to all the Dotster files?


Quinn tells Limerick students he favours regulation of

The problem with online media, the minister said, was “its inhabitants are unaccountable and live in cyberspace. . . a playground for anonymous backstabbers”.

Mr Justice Michael Peart said the Government should introduce laws making it a criminal offence to post content on-line which was “patently untrue”.