Rights without God
H. Monroe has responded to my previous notes on rights and the justifciation of law.
First he writes, regarding my dismissal of rights granted by god:
He finds this unconvincing because “if there is no god, all bets are off.” It is unfortunate that he sets this aside with a mere subjunctive statement, as opposed to an argument
Monroe fails to see that no argument is necessary because the statement is simply true. If there is no god, and rights are granted by god, there are no rights. So speaking as someone more interested in proving the existance of rights than the existance of god, the theological perspective simply becomes pointless. I realize it offends Christians to discover that their faith is of no consequence to those who do not share it, but if it helps, I also dismissed the spiritual beliefs of Buddists, Muslims, Pagans, and Flying Spaghetti Monsterists. Do not misread me — I admire spiritual paths and those who follow them. I simply recognize that there is a place for what we believe, and a place for what we know, and that these are two different things which cannot be hot-swapped, and “things we believe” must be left out of any attempt to explore and expand “things we know”. In the case of rights, there is simply no need to pollute the argument with “things we believe”, since as I have shown, rights can be shown to exist based solely on “things we know”.
Unless of course one is a tyrant, who wants to use the force of government to recreate the world as we think it should be. In this case, it is essential to base rights on “things we believe”, so that we can manipulate the argument towards taking away those rights which we find inconvenient. And unfortunately (leaving out a few simple misinterpretations that are too trivial to fool with, since I’m sure that correcting them won’t change his overall opinion) the rest of his analysis seems to fall into this category — my ideas must be wrong because they’re scary.
I suppose the difference is, I *know* my ideas are scary. He *believes* his are not. : )
fuck you! the flying spaghetti monster will damn you to eternity in the plane of rotten pasta! how dare you deny his noodleness!!! rights are granted to you by his holyness’s meatballs, and if you do not accept his noodleness as your savior, you shall be devoid of all rights to eat pasta!
religious zealotry aside, i have followed your arguments on rights, and i see your point. of all explanations of rights that i have heard, yours makes the most sense. i like how you cast aside the irrelevancy in moralness of “who was the aggressor” but that defense of your own longevity is the only right. i agree with your statement. obviously, your argument does not address that of who is right and who is wrong, who is good, who is evil, united states or north korea… what seems to fall in line with your statement is a conception of government that i have come to accept…
there is a common misconception that some governments are right and some governments are wrong. and i am not talking about the american republic versus the (former) iraqi republic. i am talking about the political ideology themselves. communism, socialism, constitutional monarchy, dictatorships, republicanism (with the united states is), and democracy (with the united states is NOT)… all of these governments serve the same purpose — to form a common union between people in order to provide for a better life for their citizens while standing firm to what the people believe is right and true.
the simple fact that a large majority of americans hold the belief that communism is evil shows the majority has absolutely no idea of what government is. you may argue on the advantages and disadvantages of differing forms of government, but to flat out call a form of government “evil” with no supporting arguments is irrational.
the soviet union believed that peaceful co-existance with the united states was possible. that is why they backed down during the cuban missle crisis, even while facing the many nuclear missles trained upon their country from western europe and turkey. the soviet government failed for a few reasons: the fact that america was so far away and they had no allies there and the sino-soviet split with youthful hardline communist china and mao zedong’s radical ideals.
it’s quite interesting to see all of the russian propaghanda that reflects that of the united states during world war II. russia, like the united states, was not interested in war. then the nazis invaded. and russia prevailed. and yet, they were evil.
i know i have gone off on quite a tangent. the point is thus: rights are horseshit. the reason we grant each other rights is because we ourselves want to prolong our own survival. and, in the face of starvation, hurricanes, tidal waves (anyone find it interesting that katrina got WAY more coverage than the indian ocean earthquake?) — the ONLY intrinsic right that you have is in defense of your own life. and why? to prolong your own survival. all other “rights” are agreements between human beings…aka “law”…
religious beliefs have absolutely no place in government. this is one of the social theories that the united states was founded upon, and it should remain so.
Hmm, well I’m not exactly saying rights are horseshit, I’m actually saying they are supreme, just that there’s nothing magic about them, and that they are all derivatives of the right to self defense: I have an unalienable right to speak, work, watch porn, smoke crack, or shave anarchy signs in my chest hair, all *because* I have a right to defend myself if someone tries to stop me. Or the inverse, when Bush II decided to murder 30,000 Iraqui citizens, he gave them the right to stop us. Flying Spaghetti Monster help us.
i’m saying rights as governments decree them are horseshit.
i am a libertarian because libertarians do not believe in non-violent crime. just as you say, if i like to smoke pot in my house, and i don’t harm anyone or disrupt anyone or cause a hoodiehahoosumbracaseesee, then i’m legal.
addendum: that’s not the only reason i am a libertarian. i have examined the beliefs of all of the political platforms, even the american communist party…and the one party that ALL of my beliefs strike home with has been the libertarians.
that’s not to say that i am a party voter. in every given election, i examine the platform of the candidate. if something that candidate says rubs me the wrong way, i move on to the next one.
i will not sell out to the popular parties. i believe what i believe and not a word of it is based in religious bullshit or media-inspired partisan propaghanda. my beliefs are based on science, fact, logic, and reason.