What do you mean by "rights"?

[Spherical Time]

Starship Troopers. One would expect it has relevance to most political situations. An excellent read and perhaps the easiest ever to tell if someone has read the book as opposed to seen the film.

John Rico with blond hair and blue eyes, what a laugh. I'll say no more.

See the film you will have no idea at all what a drop is or who Roger Young was.

You know, it's surprisingly hard to find Heinlein books in used bookstores. It's already on my 'to buy' list though.

And Rico might not have looked Argentinian at all, but a shower scene with Casper Van Dein was worth it.

 

[Maren]

Starship Troopers. One would expect it has relevance to most political situations. An excellent read and perhaps the easiest ever to tell if someone has read the book as opposed to seen the film.

John Rico with blond hair and blue eyes, what a laugh. I'll say no more.

See the film you will have no idea at all what a drop is or who Roger Young was.

Or we just read it far too long ago. I should probably reread Heinlein, though my favorite story was of the man so lazy he succeeded.

 

[Isambard]

You know, it's surprisingly hard to find Heinlein books in used bookstores. It's already on my 'to buy' list though.

And Rico might not have looked Argentinian at all, but a shower scene with Casper Van Dein was worth it.

Just buy it on amazon.com or from a major book store chain. Its the kind of book that even if you hate it, you'll still find alot of material in it that will make you think.

That said, in the book, Rico was filipino.

 

[billwald]

"Rights" are a legal fiction.

 

[cantata]

Rights bestowed by GOD are permanent. Those bestowed by a government are only as permanent as that body feels it is to their advantage.

In what sense are rights bestowed by God permanent? What difference does it make to a person's life to have rights bestowed by God rather than a government? I can understand how legal rights work, but I don't know what difference it makes to someone have rights which are not enshrined in law, apart from permitting them a sense of indignation.

The Bible does speak in terms of Liberty. It seems to me that even a cracked bell in Philadelphia reminds us of that reality.

Quotations please?

 

[Spherical Time]

Just buy it on amazon.com or from a major book store chain. Its the kind of book that even if you hate it, you'll still find alot of material in it that will make you think.

Yes, but that would require me paying full price for it. If I do that often enough, it'll seriously wreck my budget.

That said, in the book, Rico was filipino.

And yet, that changes my feelings about Casper Van Dien not a bit.

 

[cantata]

Yes, but that would require me paying full price for it. If I do that often enough, it'll seriously wreck my budget.

Amazon marketplace!

 

[Spherical Time]

Amazon marketplace!

Paperbacks in used bookstores around me max out at $3. If it's hard to find, and it's on the list long enough, I do resort to Amazon marketplace.

 

[Isambard]

Paperbacks in used bookstores around me max out at $3. If it's hard to find, and it's on the list long enough, I do resort to Amazon marketplace.

Its $7 on new on amazon. Its $2 used. Difference is that its delievered to your house

 

[sidhe]

Its $7 on new on amazon. Its $2 used. Difference is that its delievered to your house

...except that then you have to pay shipping, which puts it over $3.

My Filipino good friend from high school was proud that Johnny Rico was a kinsman.

He was also a huge sci-fi geek. But so was I. Sci-fi band geeks.

 

[TheDag]

"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

• Source: Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), Page 119
• Expanding on his statement that "a human being has no natural rights of any nature."

I can understand the point being made but for what its worth it is generally considered that a right ceases to be a right when it infringes on someone elses right. So in the case of two starving men with cannabalism the only option neither has the right to live instead of the other. As far as the man drowning in the ocean it is a bit like saying if a person was pointing a gun at you then you should expect a blade of grass to jump up out of the ground and save your life. Or in other words it is plain silly to expect an object (is that the right word?) that has no control over itself to do something in particular. It is true that our rights can be ignored. The standard for human rights these days is ignored by many countries including mine (Australia) and the USA. of course that doesn't stop people from condemning China for its human rights abuses and not saying one single word about the abuses in their own countries! The rights are United Nations Declarations and Conventions on Human Rights if your wondering what I'm talking about as the standard.

 

[mpok1519]

life liberty and the persuit of happiness (which used to be property) are the natural inalienable rights you're speaking of.

 

[cantata]

life liberty and the persuit of happiness (which used to be property) are the natural inalienable rights you're speaking of.

Where do they come from?

 

[mpok1519]

Its mostly ideals that come from the British Empiricsts and French Exestientialists; Thomas Jefferson read a ton of Locke's literature, including social contract genre philosophy.

but where do they come from? Is that an exestential question? =)

Its the whole Hobbes vs Locke thing; Locke said people are inherently good and can cooperate with each other; Hobbes felt people are evil, and only a government can get them to cooperate. Russeau I believe felt that people are inherently good, but its society that drives them to compete, which results in suffering.

It used to be the persuit of property, but they replaced that with happiness bc they realized stuff and owned property doesn't neccessarily equal happiness.

 

[cantata]

Its mostly ideals that come from the British Empiricsts and French Exestientialists; Thomas Jefferson read a ton of Locke's literature, including social contract genre philosophy.

but where do they come from? Is that an exestential question? =)

Its the whole Hobbes vs Locke thing; Locke said people are inherently good and can cooperate with each other; Hobbes felt people are evil, and only a government can get them to cooperate. Russeau I believe felt that people are inherently good, but its society that drives them to compete, which results in suffering.

It used to be the persuit of property, but they replaced that with happiness bc they realized stuff and owned property doesn't neccessarily equal happiness.

As I said, I understand the legal basis and motivation for assigning people rights, but I don't understand what they are supposed to be in the other senses in which people talk about them - for example, when they say that the laws of a particular country fail to recognise someone's rights. They seem to mean more than simply that in one's own country those people would have legal rights than they have in that other country. There's a claim being made about the natural existence of rights irrespective of law.

 

[mpok1519]

well, many countries model their constitutions from ours, yet, maybe they should've modeled them from Locke's literature as we modeled ours after.

Theyre different in everyone's eyes I suppose; life is different to some people (people life vs animal life vs fetus life), liberty (press, speech, etc) and happiness (everyone's idea of happiness is different), which is why these concepts of 'rights' are confusing.

When I think of inalienable rights, I think, I should have the right to smoke pot and badmouth the govt from the safety of my own home, while watching bad movies and giving them all bad reviews on my blog, etc, etc. Now, if we all could do that, everything else would be easy. =)