Basic Rights versus Earned Rights
This is a strait up extension of conclusions I came to on this thread http://www.highexistence.com/topic/what-is-your-way-of-restoring-your-faith-in-humanity/
The thing is, I have no authority to define those myself and enforce them, I can help in the process though.
I know we all hate the idea of forcing anything on people, and you are absolutely right, I don’t object to that. But every philosophy you currently enjoy as a free right is being taken away from other people who deserve it.
This thread is not about forcing anything but only about coming to reasonable conclusions to provide everyone with the same freedom you enjoy. It is bad to enforce but it is empathic to try to find a way to appropriately justify everything our civilization enforces and ignores.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Okay, I really do not have the time, patience, nor interest for that matter in reading what appears to be about two dozen entries made after having been awake for 72 straight hours, but if you’re going to argue about basic, or should I say “Natural” rights versus the rights we grant to ourselves as part of society, I need to step into this.
First of all, there’s no such thing as basic, natural, or inalienable rights. There is nothing in this world that we are entitled to by the mere fact that we exist. To quote Robert Heinlein (even though he took the idea out of context): “A man in the middle of the ocean may have the right to live, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to.” Any right we possess is done so through the method of social contract. We give up our freedom to gain security. Many misstate this as “We give up our rights to gain security.” but the fact is that this security comes in the form of rights. No amount of rights, or lack of them, will stop that mugger’s bullet from shattering your skull. But in your last moments of life, you can take comfort that when that mugger is caught he will be charged with violating your right to live as afforded to you by your government.
@trek79, While I’m not going to disagree that empathy is a powerful and natural emotional response, I will ask what that has to do with the concept of natural or earned rights. Could you define as best you can what a right is to you?
To me, a right is saying you are entitled to the content of that right. A right to live means you are entitled to live and people who violate this right are subject to punishment. A right to birth control means you cannot be denied it because someone else thinks you shouldn’t have it.
@tigerturban, @thelaughingfool, This is taken directly from this thread http://www.highexistence.com/topic/what-is-your-way-of-restoring-your-faith-in-humanity/
That is right, there is no right or wrong, good or bad, but there are these two distinct factors about everything: Contructive relationships and destructive forces in nature are the fundamental manifestation, but as that translates to human beings is as empathy/apathy, kindness/ignorance and love/fear. (to name the key factors)
In the causality of everything, we have what I think is best described as Yin/Yang because it does not place a possitive/negative connotation on anything, but they all correspond in the order I placed them because fundamentally they all share the same characteristics.
As in nature you can see that there are “bad” contructive relationships, an example would be cancer, and likewise there are “good” destructive forces, certain treatments of cancer could be interpreted as such, or how tornados wipe out trailer trash. (there are heaps of real examples of this, you may be able to think of some yourself)
But as there is this flip in the benefits of the roles of these things on in the natural world, it would only make sense that the same is true regarding the human aspects that I mensioned. But as we take explosives to destroy a building (you may be familiar with) in the early days of this technology the results were chaotic, but in time we discovered ways to control the blast in a way to have less collateral damage at the site. So it would make sense that we find a way to focus the destructive forces of the human aspect appropriately also.
Why kindness is preferential over ignorance is obvious, but for the hell of it: We as humans are a constuctive relationship and as long as that relationship is constructive, we would not want to destroy it. Then when you look at our very nature, you see we respond to those key emotions love and fear, that for the most part we find things like babies and puppies a passive and nice sensation, whereas regardless of the exhilirating enjoyment fear often brings us (an aspect of that flip in benefits, as before) a threatening situation is usually tense, heightened, alarming.
(I also seen this video on how most of our 52 genes are inactive but the emotion of love touches down on more points in the sequence than fear, as though we some how get more out of our dna by love than we do from fear, I suppose more does not inherently suggest “better” but it makes some kind of point on an emotion/science level)
@trek79, no, I don’t think this is about forcing anyone to do anything either. It’s just about changing how people view the world and the value of a human life. I’m not saying we should give everyone a mansion and a Cadillac, but I do say that people deserve a better minimum than starving in the streets because we are civilized, not just animals, and that as technology improves and becomes more common, we as a civilization should be able to raise the bar. We can choose a higher road because we can counter our instincts with reason and compassion. A lot of conservative people like to say that human life has no inherent value except what it provides to society, but how can you be loyal to something that has no respect for you in return, indeed, something that only keeps most of us alive so that it can continue using and abusing us? That’s not loyalty, it’s coercion. These are usually the same people who have plenty, and they like to say people shouldn’t have this or that, but I bet they wouldn’t say that so easily if it was them who would lose something.
I can put this issue to rest now, my dad made a good point, he said it is all about self-interest, that no one would do it until others do it but if others do it one would choose not to do it because he could benefit from the larger consumer base anyway, without spending a cent to create it. I under-estimate selfish greed is all. That is the only point I needed :)
Pretty much the only option is if we could organize enough people world wide to rally boycotts against any company that refuses to do it, well I can dream.
The thing is, there are probably about 50 or so companies that would really need to be on board, you would probably have to boycott them one by one, with tens of millions of people world wide collaborating. Not impossible to do, especially if it trends.
haha, oil and gas, we’re screwed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue
Here’s what I think. That guy quoting Osho needs to shut the fuck up and have his own opinion.
I mean, fuck that guy. Trevor Fletcher. What a fucking loser and stuff, and oh how offensive I am and how useless someone is.
I said that because Basic rights in addition with earned rights is what everyone does all the time. On a forum on the Internet, a few would hold their ground without showing any kind of gratitude and connection. That Trevor guy is a pussy actually, a spammer searching for himself, still struggling if his basic rights were earned.
Everyone has the right to talk to themselves, hence the attention this thread has and the time you wasted. Everyone is making judgment calls because that’s how the mind works, it’s observing, judging. ESTIMATING.
You never earned anything, you’re a witness of being a receiver.
speaking of Osho!! (teehee!)
Jesus and the money-changers
People come to me and they ask, “What is right and what is wrong?” I say, “Awareness is right; unawareness is wrong.” I don’t label actions as wrong and right. I don’t say violence is wrong. Sometimes violence can be right. I don’t say love is right. Sometimes love can be wrong. Love can be for a wrong person, love can be for a wrong purpose. Somebody loves his country. Now, this is wrong because nationalism is a curse. Somebody loves his religion. He can kill, he can murder, he can burn others’ temples. Neither is love always right nor is anger always wrong.
Then what is right and what is wrong? To me, awareness is right. If you are angry with full awareness, even anger is right. And if you are loving with unawareness, even love is not right. So let the quality of awareness be there in every act that you do, in every thought that you think, in every dream that you dream. Let the quality of awareness enter into your being more and more. Become suffused with the quality of awareness. Then whatsoever you do is virtue. Then whatsoever you do is good. Then whatsoever you do is a blessing to you and to the world in which you live.
Let me remind you of a situation that happened in Jesus’ life. He took a whip and entered into the great temple of Jerusalem.
A whip in the hand of Jesus…? This is what Buddha means when he says, “an unwounded hand can handle poison.” Yes, Jesus can handle a whip, no problem; the whip cannot overpower him. He remains alert, his consciousness is such.
The great temple of Jerusalem had become a place of robbers. There were money-changers inside the temple and they were exploiting the whole country. Jesus alone entered the temple and upturned their boards–the boards of the money-changers–threw their money around and created such turmoil that the money-changers escaped outside the temple. They were many and Jesus was alone, but he was in such a fury, in such a fire! Now, this has been a problem for the Christians: how to explain it?–because their whole effort is to prove that Jesus is a dove, a symbol of peace. How can he take a whip in his hands? How can he be so angry, so enraged, that he upturned the boards of the money-changers and threw them outside the temple? And he must have been afire; otherwise, he was alone–he could have been caught hold of. His energy must have been in a storm; they could not face him. The priests and the business people all escaped outside shouting, “This man has gone mad!”
Christians avoid this story. There is no need to avoid it if you understand: Jesus is so innocent! He is not angry; it is his compassion. He is not violent, he is not destructive; it is his love. The whip in his hand is the whip in the hands of love, compassion.
A man of awareness acts out of his awareness, hence there is no repentance; his action is total. And one of the beauties of the total action is that it does not create karma; it does not create anything; it doesn’t leave any trace on you. It is like writing on water: you have not even finished… it is gone. It is not even writing in sand, because that may remain for a few hours if the wind does not come–it is writing on water.
If you can be totally alert, then there is no problem. You can handle poison; then the poison will function as a medicine. In the hands of the wise, poison becomes medicine; in the hands of the fools, even medicine, even nectar, is bound to become poison. If you function out of innocence–not out of knowledgeability but out of childlike innocence–then you can never come to any harm, because it leaves no trace. You remain free of your actions. You live totally and yet no action burdens you.
@tigerturban, That is why people need each other, because they cannot always be aware of every factor because they are not perfect, if someone is not aware of something that you know and is indeed asking for insight into what he is not seeing, then what? Is it funny to watch him squirm on his failure? You sit back and enjoy it? You don’t just say someone is doing something wrong, you show them why, you tell them what they missed. You don’t come back later on and say you told them they were wrong, because no you didn’t, you just laughed in their face and left them to rot.
But considering there is the Kyoto protocol, that nations are signatories to, why isn’t there a similar pact for the elimination of poverty? Kyoto is actually against some of the big industries, but eliminating poverty is in everyones interest, especially the big industries, as it creates a larger consumer base.
Feeding the poor is actually counter productive, it just gives them the opportunity to get worse, but all money should focus on getting them to self-sufficiency. That is one mistake I think we have made, we decided to feed them rather than give them the tools to feed themselves. But of course, nothing is that simple.