Skip to forum content

You are not logged in. Please login or register.

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Should we assign rights on a first come, first served basis?

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

RSS topic feed

Posts: 29


Not sure lack of language equates lack of right. Born children have rights. Why should the non living have rights? Some things do apply to the dead, like copyright and estates and what not, but why should someone who is no longer present be counted? The mother is life support. We terminate that all time on the living. Why should the unborn get special treatment.


Only living human beings have rights; and they all have exactly the same rights.
Institutions (i.e. "Society") have no rights.
Future; speculated humans have no rights.
The dead have no rights.
Animals have no rights. ( I choke on that one. I support laws against inhumane treatment of animals)


The prognosis of someone on life support has to justify their termination.


And if the mother doesn't want to be a mother then it's justified.


What if the father doesn't want to be a father?


He should not spew seed


So; the mother is held to a different standard than the father.


She's just as responsible for him doing so as he is.


Yes but she has an option. So there you go.


Why doesn't he?


" I have stolen this land from anyone in the future."
You would have to redefine 'stolen' for it to apply to a nonexistent entity that never owned anything.


He isn't the incubator.


So; the owner of the life support equipment has life and death authority over the dependent individual.


In this case yes. Do you think she should be forced to give birth?


Hi Bry, We probably come close to landing on the same page. I agree with you that classical liberalism (Hobbes/Locke/Hume) doesn't anticipate, and isn't equipped for pertinently addressing, several related and major contemporary crises. These include AGW, net deforestation in several countries key for supplying the world's oxygen, a petroleum-based global fuel economy that remains in place for the financial power of Big Oil, unsustainable growth of population in equatorial Africa as an incommensurate yet desperate response to the rapid rise of capitalism and a legacy from colonialism, and a pivotal country's (the U.S.) failure to seize the ripe moment when the corporate state's contradictions open wide and clear as it produces slave labor and correlating leisure parcels with impunity. That isn't simply about Trump.


Interesting.  I've worked with a lot of electronics technicians (or did in the past), and they did tend to be very sharp.  If you haven't already, sounds like an excellent time to be negotiating with the boss smile


We have to spell around our dog.  It hit me one day that he's able to figure out what our words mean, whereas we'll never truly understand the meaning of a bark unless the meaning of it is obvious enough.  Even more impressive, dogs can do the same thing with any human language.  Animals are amazing.


We certainly agree on this point, but à la Planet of the Apes, what if they could speak? How would our world view change? What about an  alien 'invasion scenario?
My guess is we would fight to remain 'at the top' of the food chain. [sic]


Oh come on.  Do you invest your savings in anything that does not have a guaranteed return by contract, such as stocks?  You can still value the money to be received in the future. Even bond investment is not guaranteed when the company goes bankrupt.  (Ask Enron bond holders how they fared.)
It does not matter if you have no contract with future generations.  You can still protect them.  If you have children, then you can protect them and their yet-to-be-born children.  It's called estate planning.  Why not take a broader view than just your immediate progeny?


What 'value' is ascribed to nonexistent people? Maybe your use of the word 'value' is at issue.
I do not value anything that doesn't exist.
I do strive in my personal business to make the future better than the present. I am not bound by any outside authority to any duty to any imaginary entity.
What part of any of that endows non existent people with enforceable rights?
There is nothing more 'fiat' than saying everybody has an enforceable duty to an imaginary entity; presumably defined by the enforcers themselves. Make up an entity and presume its desires and needs and enforce those imaginings on real people. I may have somewhat 'fiat' arguments; at least they not advocating forcible support for a whole fiat world.
Your calling my arguments 'fiat' is fiat. yikes)


Do you provide for inheritance of your assets to progeny that does not yet exist and may never exist? That is value.  Making the future better than the present, which you do,  is value in the most general sense.  If you do so out of a feeling of moral duty, then you bind yourself by those morals.   If you think those morals are generalizable to everyone in society, then society can bind itself accordingly.  We already do to some extent.  That is what social security and 401(k) plans do.
You keep saying that you accord future generations no rights, but in fact you do.


I do not. Rights are enforceable by violence. My decisions may include speculation; and my decisions are indeed enforceable; But those are my rights, not those of the imagined heirs.
Like I said; I may speculate and project in my decision making; but only the rights of real people are enforceable. In this case MY rights.
If I speculate about YOUR progeny my decisions are not enforceable at all;
Not because my progeny have rights yours don't;
but because YOUR rights would be violated by the enforcement of my speculation.


" If you think those morals are generalizable to everyone in society, "
I do not say my 'values' regarding the future can be enforced on other people. In fact NONE of my values can be so imposed. That would violate the equal rights of others.
And (much like imaginary people) Society cannot enter into a binding agreement, because it is not a person. It is yet another imaginary entity that people presume to speak for in pursuit of controlling other people. An article of faith. A substitute GOD.


didn't think so. sigh


Whatever stance the government takes on its protecting future generation it is imposing some set of values or morals.  Even "do nothing" is a moral choice.
Society certainly can enter into binding agreements.  That is what a constitution is.  Likewise, legislatures can adopt laws and agencies adopt regulations that bind us all.  We implicitly agree by voting for and supporting a government that can act for us.  I know this cuts against your libertarian faith, but so be it.


Do nothing doesn't violate the person or property of a living human being. Oh yeah; I know government force is used by whoever can get control of it. That doesn't grant rights.


I've got one forya:
Say:I make a will to leave stuff to [fill in the blank]; with no name, just qualifications.
I take it to a lawyer to execute. (at this point it is between me and the lawyer.)
I die.
Someone meeting the qualifications comes along and 'fills in the blank'. (At this point it's between the lawyer and the heir)
Now; No future person had any rights. It's a contract between me and the lawyer. BUT;
The lawyer; at the execution; is performing on a contract with a dead man; who has no rights. That is one I can't get around.
I have no political "faith"; peace and freedom do not require it.


Imaginary or proto? Unicorns have no rights, but proto and prospective humans have limited rights. For example, a first-born son has latent rights that manifest upon instantiation. Without instantiation, these rights concomitantly don't manifest.
It is possible to infringe upon this right through fraud or some other deception.


You have offer a good example for the inter generational point I was trying to make.  Thanks.

Posts: 29

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Should we assign rights on a first come, first served basis?

Similar topics in this forum