What is the difference between individual rights and human rights?
Posted by Solver 7 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
My answer:
Human rights, such as affordable Obama healthcare, require involuntary servitude.
Human rights, such as affordable Obama healthcare, require involuntary servitude.
"Right" is a moral and political term. I can only define it Objectively. Rights are the powers of action any individual still keeps even after joining a society. But the United Nations, in claiming to define "rights," actually have created a charter of needs and allowances. A society that pledges to fulfill needs does not grant rights. It only grants allowances. It allows you to keep only what you need--and no one person can judge his need or his ability. Such a society then needs a dictator, to judge needs and allocate resources.
Ridiculous, of course--because someone has to produce wealth. One does not pick it off a bush. Inevitably those who find themselves giving more than they're getting, will leave. Absolutely everyone has his price....
As government officials, there are only permissions given to them by laws. They still retain individual rights but are restrained by the laws as to what the permissions will allow them. They should be firmly leashed to the law as government officials and workers including police and military and courts.
Government has no power to instill rights, only to limit them.
Our ancestors actually ceded natural and/or individual rights when they began relying on a written document and votes to hold gov't in line, instead of relying on themselves, individually and as a group to maintain their rights. Words on paper, votes on a ballot, a minority philosophy vs no philosophy, or an oath at election are not sufficient defense against those that seek power or those that seek equality at the finish line rather than equality at the starting line with gov't force against others in order to get them.
The human rights problem reminds me of the confirmation hearing for judge Bork where he was being questioned by Biden. Bork's answer about rights made me think "oh shades of the Magna Carta" because he seems to have believed that rights are granted by the government. Biden, at the time, seemed to have a firmer grasp as to the nature of rights. He does not show that grasp very often.
.
Sorry, just burning to ask.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.."
As well I would point you to the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, they wrote it to ensure you could protect your Rights; or die defending the right
I may have a 0 but theoretical visiting space aliens still have their individual rights
Don't no one tell me an non-human visit won't come someday.
Came back to look thinking it would by now be minus something.
Guess I'll forget about fetching Brenda Lee to sing "I'm Sorry" from Youtube.
I'm in one of my old dino Andy Kaufman kinda moods today.
It means someone is about to ask you to pay for another persons basic needs.
It is an intentional misnomer- an abuse and distortion of language.
The mistake is when the uneducated or purposefully deceitful people use incorrect words which confuse and causes issues.
In the case of your posted question to should correctly be stated What is the difference between Individual rights and 'civil' rights. This makes clear that Individual rights are from 'birth' and Civil rights are from civilization AKA society/government; examples of a civil right would be the right to drive a car on public roads as long as you 'buckle up', don't speed, get the vehicle inspected and pay the proper fuel and other excise taxes.
Example of an Individual right would be the right to decide what you use the moments of your life for [Right to Life]; you could use some hours of your life in order to earn wealth, get physically fit or playing video games..every moment you exchange that part of your life for what you are doing..like right now; I am giving part of my life away sharing knowledge.
point out with o'care. . it should be the sum of individual
rights -- with only the pronoun change from his or hers
to "theirs." . the purveyors of this servitude tripe should
be jailed. -- j
.
Further, there is no such thing as mob rights or group rights, because every group is comprised of individuals. Just because a bunch of individuals get together, it doesn't mean that they now have more rights that were not available to them as individuals. For some reason, destruction of property, or hurting a fellow human are more forgivable in a mob setting is pure nonsense.
i always won using "individual" vs "human" in the pre-debate...
sorry to be so long-winded...
There are no human rights except it is useful to say that all humans have individual sovereignty and hence should have their rights protected. The key figure is Locke then the founders especially Monroe and then Rand.
Example: your Right to Life gives you the right to exchange part of your life for goods [food, shelter, education, clothes, wealth..etcetera]. This 'Earned income' is not to be taxed, in the U.S.A., except in times of dire need such as time of war and only then by 'capitation' [apportionment which means each person pays the exact same amount of the tax ie: $5 each].
Now how it was stolen; People claim it was the 16th Amendment, but that is wrong. The 16th Amendment "gave no new power to tax" (Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)).
In fact over 28 SCOTUS cases say the same thing all the way up to 2011 (last I checked), as do the Congressional Records of the 16th Amendment debates and the letter's of the Secretary of the Treasury to POTUS and or Congress (most famous is the 1939 letter to FDR). In fact, the 16th Amendment was written and adopted to end the error of SCOTUS in the Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) case which placed 'unearned' income into the category of 'earned' income.
THINK OF THE 1895 POLLOCK DECISION AS THE FIRST ATTEMPT AT A "FLAT" OR "FAIR" TAX.
This mistake by SCOTUS caused taxes to only be collected by 'capitation' meaning the wealthiest only needed to pay what the poorest could afford; ie: James Mellon made $120,000,000.00 in 1904, but only paid $100 in federal taxes because the poorest families could bearly afford the $100, but had to pay it. This created a huge expansion of wealth to the wealthy and no chance to gain wealth to the middle and lower class.
The 16th Amendment in its wording; "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on INCOMES, from WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED, WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." THIS WORDING WAS NEEDED DUE TO IT BEING IN THE POLLOCK SCOTUS OPINION IN ORDER TO CANCEL AND PLACE 'UNEARNED' INCOME BACK INTO ITS PROPER EXCISE (IRS TAXABLE) TAX PLACE.
SO BLAMING THE 16TH AMENDMENT'S INCORRECT IT LEGALLY CAN'T BE BLAMED
The theft came in and about 1940 when the U.S. decided to join the war [WWII], they started plans for people to 'voluntarily' claim their 'earned' income as taxable with 'unearned' income..
You see the law never changed, the Constitutional requirement for 'earned' income to only be taxable by 'apportionment' never changed..just the misuse and understanding of the phase: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment.."
I have these questions which should help you understand:
First let's look at "INCOME"; according to IRS code, business and banking it is profit.
1) when you work [AKA labor, exchange part of your 'lifetime' for money] how much is profit; SCOTUS said in several cases "..without knowing cost there can be no profit..", so what is an hour of your life worth?
2) Is everyone's life the same worth; Brain Surgeons have more knowledge and intricate abilities others do not have the same with Athletes, Businesspersons, Pilots and so forth all the way down to a handicapped person [becareful here Stephen Dawkins is a handicapped person as well]. Question: if everyone is different and each has a different worth, how can the IRS code tabulate every individual as the same worth?
3) If you by the United States very first law "..Have the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.."; how can that 'RIGHT' be effected by taxation?
Now taxation is not the only theft those corrupt power hungry people in the federal government have perpetrated on us; but, it is a major one!
I only hope those that read this begin to awaken from the hypnotises they are under and begin to study, learn and share their new found knowledge to help the people living in the 50 Nations (States) that make up the republic of These United States of America [the original way it was penned was 'these' due to them being separate sovereign 'nations'] once again free of the enslavement of an oppressive government holding them down
Human rights pertain to the entire human or terran race. One big collective no matter if if you llike it or not. Only if they apply equally at all times to all humans are they human rights. The right to breathe for example.
Individual rights belong to individuals as a group of one. No more than one or you stray into group rights.
Natural rights are those one is born with, live and die with.
In each case only the here we go individuals in the group can as individuals or as a collective change those rights or assign them to the control of others.
Brings you up to the level of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
However going back to the first part of this one more refinement is usually needed. Human, or animal, or plant being three big modifiers.
"Individual rights mean any living and for some non living creatures or entities.
Finally apply the viewpoint Does a rock have a natural right to fall on my head? Do I have a right ot object to the rocks natural right since I struck the blow on the mine shaft wall that caused it to fall? Natural rights pertain to the 'nature of' and the nature of things brings us back to the end of the First Law and the beginning of the second law of objectivism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individ...
"In Western discourse, individual rights are often associated with political and economic freedom, whereas group rights are associated with social control."
Justice is Justice, only when labeled like "Social-Justice", Human rights....does it swerve off the road of intelligent reason.
You have "..The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..", but what does that mean? It starts off equal, Right to Life, and then becomes different for each of us; liberty to live alone without civilization, or decide to live in civilization and abide by its laws and the 'Happiness'; yours may be getting high, or playing video games while mine is creating, repairing and studying...each is different, each is your choice.
Do I have a (the) right to opt out of paying for another's rehab?
If yes, then do religious organizations have the right to opt out of paying for the same or abortion, contraceptives, rehab, etc?
If no, then am I now enslaved to earn and hand over my value for others to walk a tight rope?
Now, if I have any "right" not to be involved in another person's actions, then should I? Why?
As the Founders correctly penned with:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,.."
If your 'pursuit of happiness' means giving to those that haven't given anything to you in exchange that is your 'RIGHT'