|
Post by paul on Nov 28, 2011 5:45:29 GMT 9.5
On another thread I read: No human rights can exist without property rights.
I wonder whether this is true. For example if parts of the human exist beyond the physical, do those parts have rights that do not derive from property?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Nov 28, 2011 6:22:54 GMT 9.5
It is an interesting question. Could you think of an example of a human right that was not connected somehow to property rights? If there is indeed a difference between the two we should be able to come up with an example.
|
|
|
Post by chingus on Nov 28, 2011 6:42:02 GMT 9.5
OWSers don't need property, they assume the right to squat on yours.
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Nov 28, 2011 7:35:46 GMT 9.5
On another thread I read: No human rights can exist without property rights. I wonder whether this is true. For example if parts of the human exist beyond the physical, do those parts have rights that do not derive from property? This is a false premise. You are assuming that other levels of existence have the same concrete reality as does ours.
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Nov 28, 2011 7:39:18 GMT 9.5
We are talking here about physical reality. Our primary individual right is the right to life. As I explained on the other thread, in order to live, one must own the fruits of one's own labor. This implies property. Communal ownership of land was a disaster for the Pilgrims in the early settlement of America. It was found during the first year that some would work hard and others would not - and mooch off of the productivity of others. The solution was private property.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Nov 28, 2011 7:59:10 GMT 9.5
There is great merit there, can one have any right without the rights to the material necessities of life? What is required for those material necessities?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Nov 28, 2011 8:33:51 GMT 9.5
On another thread I read: No human rights can exist without property rights. I wonder whether this is true. For example if parts of the human exist beyond the physical, do those parts have rights that do not derive from property? IT might prove to be useful to separate Matter and Non Matter in this argument. Can the parts of us which exist beyond the physical be considered human? Is our soul human? We are told that our Spirit is Divine. Apart from all that we are told by the Seven Sacred VSL's of Freemasonry, that the Plan is Perfect. That every brother shall have his due. That we should accept all without scruple or diffidence, because the Plan is Perfect. This might indicate that property or not, each part of existence has rights and every Bro, human kind or not, has rights - which will eventually be afforded to him/them.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 28, 2011 8:42:53 GMT 9.5
so what non-material rights might a human (or animal?) have?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Nov 28, 2011 9:16:13 GMT 9.5
so what non-material rights might a human (or animal?) have? God knows (the question is too hard for me) But, hey, that has never stopped me before.... how about the right to naturally evolve. I am getting the image of the circular route that water takes in its journey through time and space. I see it's circular path from 'nothing' in the heavens to vapour, to rain, to vapour to 'nothing' in the heavens again. But we must also take into consideration the smaller circular route it takes as water on our planet as it moves through the mineral, plant, animal and human kingdoms. Wheels within wheels, as Ezekiel puts it. Maybe outside our Earthly life, similar patterns occur. Maybe each part of the cycle is beholden to act as principal sojourner to their younger Brn. Maybe we can help our animals in their evolution. Maybe those that we might consider as a burden on society are just younger, less experienced builders of temples. As master builders we might consider them as apprentices and give them the tools and skills they need to become master builders themselves in the future, or future lives.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Nov 28, 2011 9:19:26 GMT 9.5
Evolution does not happen with an individual, just with the individuals offspring. Unless of course you are talking about some other progress that has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection but a phenomenon that has borrowed the term "evolution."
If there are similar cycles outside of now that does not alleviate us of the responsibilities of now.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 28, 2011 9:36:51 GMT 9.5
Perhaps "unfold naturally" is what is meant here. There is some communal view that children have that right
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Nov 28, 2011 9:56:32 GMT 9.5
Evolution does not happen with an individual, just with the individuals offspring. I can't agree with you there. Just as children evolve into adults over the course of a single lifetime, so do our minds evolve. Mind being the builder, we can create ever greater edifices. I possess some unusual skills now, that were undreamt of in my youth. I believe I developed then by serious application of that which I learned largely through the Theosophical Society's vast library and the instructions given by the symbols and allegories to be found with Freemasonry. Indeed, the former help me discover some keys to the latter. I do agree with that. It seems that as the skills base increases, so do the responsibilities. .. that is maybe the key to understanding - "the reward of ever greater service in His Holy Temple." It does become quite onerous, but we promised to persevere Testing the metal ;D
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Nov 28, 2011 10:22:22 GMT 9.5
Perhaps "unfold naturally" is what is meant here. There is some communal view that children have that right That depends. Children need discipline or they will turn into barbarians. Or, rather, they will continue as such. Read The Lord of the Flies. Or watch a video of any OWS event.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Nov 28, 2011 10:31:49 GMT 9.5
Perhaps "unfold naturally" is what is meant here. There is some communal view that children have that right That depends. Children need discipline or they will turn into barbarians. Or, rather, they will continue as such. As Children of God - we need the discipline of karma? What you do unto others you do unto yourself, as the VSL puts it. Live by the sword and you will die by the sword ... literally maybe (this life or next)? Karma is usually mentioned along with the Akashic Record... some sort of cosmic storehouse of all that is/was. I think this is the lesson that Mark is telling. We are continually rejected till we are ready to take our place. The Overseers, faithfully recording all our thoughts, words, deeds to that end.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Nov 28, 2011 10:37:36 GMT 9.5
There is nothing that you are now or what you could be that is not given to you at birth. Any example of otherwise would be more than welcome to examine. Evolution happens amongst generations, not amongst learning mantras or anything like that. What we experience and learn through our lives does help us realize our potential but it does not free us from what we are.
We should be careful with the term "evolution" as it has meaning of its own. "Development" would be a good term for what you are describing.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Nov 28, 2011 11:42:34 GMT 9.5
Hear what you are saying.
My dictionary explains evolution as any gradual process of growth or development. But it does also give the biological definition as the slow, continuous process of change in the characteristics of organisms from one generation to the next.
Using the definition in a biological sense, how can you demonstrate to me a change, or changes, that have occurred to us biologically from 2 generations ago, or 20 generations ago. Longevity aside, which perhaps can be attributed to medical advances and improved nutrition.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Nov 28, 2011 13:43:45 GMT 9.5
There are great many but the vast majority of those are just mathematically oddities at this time. They won't make much of difference until the EEA becomes more strict.
Longevity doesn't have too much of an effect after breeding years are gone.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 2, 2011 7:52:46 GMT 9.5
Our primary individual right is the right to life. .. Governments tend not to recognise such a right, conscripting civilians and sending those troops out to face death
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 2, 2011 13:36:39 GMT 9.5
There are no more conscripts in the United States. I know that other western nations still believe that compulsory service is a good idea. I agree only half way. The conscripts will learn a lot. They will not however be the kind of the person that actually believes in stepping up because they were forced to. Yet another piece of argument against the growth of government.
There is no right to life that exists outside of society. There are no rights granted from Above that trump the actions the people.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 2, 2011 16:09:16 GMT 9.5
..There are no rights granted from Above that trump the actions the people. So there is no divine plan for humans that might imply some functional rights?
|
|