Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Unalienable right to life Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Should every child born into a group of humans have an inalienable right to a proportionate material interest in the group’s territory?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Those who believe in Darwinian evolution accept that no organism has a right to life; the expression of a belief in human beings right to life is a philosophic fiction born out of the concentration of people into certain urban developments that gave rise to particular forms of civilization. ‘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,.........’. Everyone’s unalienable right to life; a life that in former times procured its food and shelter from the common domain in which one individual’s interest was as valid as another’s; an unalienable interest (if we accept the fiction of a right to life) that cannot be extinguished (sold or given away) without subordinating the individual’s life to that of another (who retains their right to life), alienating an individual’s unalienable right to life. Responsibility for providing for one’s own subsistence cannot be conscionably insisted upon if the means for doing so has been annexed by others. A genuine belief in all individuals’ right to life compels those who profess belief in that right to support the provision of basic food and shelter for an individual’s subsistence when the means of acquiring it themselves have been appropriated by the State or private interests. The right to life (subsistence) applies to all from birth in a delineated monetised society since those who have appropriated the common domain (Earth) without consideration have transgressed the rules of equity (...all men are created equal,...), declining to accept that individuals’ right to life trumps disobligated occupation. Paying a proportionate consideration to fellow humans for their exclusion from your exclusive plot resolves the philosophic problem raised by disobligated occupation and belief in individuals’ right to life.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All supposedly democratic polities subscribe to the philosophical assertion that all human beings in existence have a right to life as expounded by the American Declaration of Independence; ‘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’. Those eloquent words disguised the gulf between what they ostensibly announced about every human’s rights and the constituency to which they were meant to apply at the time; surely the Founding Fathers really meant that those rights only applied to those competent to exercise them? An objective exposition of the economic ramifications of a belief in the universality of the right to life would predicate an unalienable right to access food and shelter (not a responsibility to work for another in order to enjoy their ‘unalienable’ right) in an equitable monetised society. Those claiming to support an unalienable right to life have not pursued its delivery further than the ‘sound bite’, down the ages this repeated rhetoric has usually being sufficient to convince submissive/passive audiences of a speaker’s sincerity – the actions most political speaker’s support belies their rhetoric for a genuine veneration of that right requires the provision of the material means to guarantee a right to life when the individuals ability to do so has been appropriated by another; human or corporate.



    If the rhetoric of democratic accountability and a right to life is to have genuine substance then the general acceptance of an individual’s property right in the common domain becomes the fundamental basis for the provision of ‘free’ basic subsistence in a monetised territorial society [not free but just, as in justice, consideration from those who occupy other peoples’ patrimony - their property right in their national territory] for everyone in order that an inalienable right to life is in fact realised in the provision of a legal, enforceable material right that is not just a rhetorical theme for political windbags. The attitude of most of the population towards a right to property (which alone secures a minimum freedom of life choices) is not an attitude of entitlement (the right of consumption is their entitlement) people have been brought up to think that their right to life is conditional on their becoming a wage-slave (in order to consume), ceasing to be a wage-earner is seen as being totally outside the realities of life; because civilized humans have been disinherited from time immemorial it is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It is maintained by some that secure property rights are an essential foundation for a stable society a proposition that the thread starter supports if it means encompassing the security of everyone’s property rights in the common domain, a completely inclusive proposition that has to be adopted by a majority if the belief in everyone’s right to life is to have any significance as a realisable philosophic position upon which to construct State legislation; as Hilaire Belloc (C20th UK) observed, “ . . if we do not restore the Institution of Property we cannot escape restoring the Institution of Slavery; there is no third course." Property rights are the selfish agents of civilisation they secure an individual’s identification with the State that can protect them which is why territorial States with huge disinherited populations suffer from endemic discontent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    According to Tinbergen and Lorenz animals’ natural aggression [we are animals who live by philosophic social, political and territorial fictions that all too often conflict with many of our animal instincts] is mainly concerned with ‘territory’ so the general acceptance of an equitable interest in territory for each individual within a society should remove one of the subliminal causes of societal (animal) friction. Every wrong inflicted by one individual on another is a violation of the injured person’s rational human rights. Those individual rights that a society accepts should be unreservedly protected to maintain equity of treatment is a commitment that negates any uninhibited right to liberty and happiness for the individual; it is therefore a circumscribed liberty and pursuit of happiness that is afforded the individual since the right to life cannot be threatened by any other right, its defence is paramount or it will be reduced (as it has been) to impotence. In human communities those rights that are upheld are dependent on the mores whose violation the community or its authority figures are prepared to penalize or tolerate. The uncompensated assumption of an individual’s territorial right (jus soli) by another is tolerated in settled societies and because it is a sense of alienation is perpetually sown in the minds of many of those whose material right in territory is not fully appreciated by themselves, their peers or their authority figures.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The disregard of an individual’s material interest in the national territory became entrenched because most population’s exhibit a general philosophical acquiescence in the notion of a singular territorial owner (Monarch or State) of the land of their birth. The disposal of the territory that encompassed the nation was the Monarch’s (State’s) prerogative; an individual had, and has no ultimate right to land that is not held of the Monarch (State). The disregard of individuals’ rights by a ‘superior’ individual or the assumed unconditional subordination to those in charge of the State is an ancient and well-established mind-set exhibited by senior authority figures and accepted by submissive/passive populations (the betrayal of the Highland Clans by their authority figures being a poignant example of many world-wide) and this widespread mentality persists to this day because of a biological disposition in the animal kingdom to defer to those in possession which in the case of humans extends to those claiming legal possession (that legality being promulgated by or on behalf of a privileged select constituency).



    The Earth derives a value solely from the uncounted number of people whose survival (and lately for relatively few their prosperity) is dependent on it. In civilized societies that value has traditionally been appropriated by a minority with little or no reference to the population at large which is denied a material right in the territory of their birth, consequently the majority became subject to the vagaries of personality exhibited by either better placed, ambitious or aggressive fellow humans. All humans have an interest in all of nature’s largesse and if we accept that assertion then any individual should be able to command, control, consume or bequeath any piece of that largesse in accordance with their purchasing power, skill, ability and industry but they cannot (without condoning the unilateral appropriation of every other persons’ interest) supplant all humans’ natural, subsumed right in the common domain because whether it has been improved by themselves or another they are liable for the use of the human community’s stake that is inseparably bound up in it – however small.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The thread starter subscribes to John Stuart Mill’s (UK, C19th) assertion that; ‘No man made the land [the Earth]. It is the original inheritance of the whole species. Its appropriation is wholly a question of general expediency. When private property in land is not expedient, it is unjust’. The injustice of inexpedient land use could be addressed by a society’s categorical acceptance of every individual’s inalienable equal interest in all the territory occupied by that society. This proposition accords with John Rawls (US, C20th) opinion that, ‘certain principles of justice are justified because they would be agreed to in an initial situation of equality’ (as proclaimed by the US Declaration of Independence) which could provide the philosophic foundation for a universal acceptance of the proposition that to be fair and just every human on the Earth must have an equal material property right in it and that right extends to the right of subsistence from those societies that deny individuals the right to feed, clothe and shelter themselves from the territories they occupy because of the appropriation of the land within a territorial State for State, corporate or an advantaged individual’s private use.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You should consider bulletpoints.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3rmit)
    You should consider bulletpoints.
    h3rmit Thank you for your suggestion. The case for the recognition by individuals and authortiy figures of every individuals' material property right in the common domain requiries an engagement of minds that discourse, rather than statements, promotes. At the conclusion of my exposition it would be expedient to employ bullet points.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    According to ‘Burke’s Peerage’, land was the prime test of rank and position. More secure than cash or securities, it was also immovable, giving its owner a literal stake in the country. George Monbiot (UK C21st) related the following in an article; ’The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 gave leaseholders the right to buy the leasehold of the houses they had lived in for more than 21yrs at the prices prevailing [at the time of their original occupation]. In 1980 the Duke of Westminster protested at the European Court of Human Rights that he was being deprived of his property against his will by being forced by law to sell at prices well below [current] market values. In 1985 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that compulsory transfer from one individual to another might constitute a legitimate means of promoting the public interest. The enhancement of social justice within the community could properly be described as being in the public interest’ - a political definition of the public good prevailed over the rights of [disobligated] private property. This should give some encouragement to any legislators who wish to engage in a quest for a law that would extinguish the feudal nature of landholding in the UK and replace it with a territory annexed for its citizens and held in trust for them by the State. A truly representative equitably inclined government’s duty should be to hold the nation’s territory in trust for all its citizens, not be partisan and protect the invented terrestrial property rights of a miniscule section of the community [0.6% of the population 'hold' 70% of the land, the Monarch is titular owner of all of it] who have through their influence in the executive, administrative and political systems created laws that discriminate in favour of a constituency of influential individuals and organizations over the population at large. The promotion of equity of treatment by land law would be a material commitment to a belief in each individual national's right to life.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What rational justification has the government of a State got, to expect its citizens to give it the support necessary for its continued stability if it is denied that they all have a equal stake in the State of which they are one of the two essential elements? The citizens’ common interest in the nation’s stability should be enhanced by the recognition of their right to a stake in the State’s territory from birth - without territory or a population to inhabit it there is no State. States with small populations are vulnerable to the attentions of those with larger ones and only with a critical mass of citizens has a nation the ability to prosper in peace or war. No sentient person would consciously wish to subordinate themselves to the authority figures of a State unless they believe that the functionaries of the State accept that individuals have a right to life. The protection of its citizens’ right to life, secure access to food and the provision of shelter (and protection from molestation) are the State’s principal duties they give rise to a responsibility to defend every individuals’ property right (jus soli) in all of the nation’s territory. The acceptance by government of a citizen’s inalienable stake should be the basis of citizens reciprocal willing acceptance of their subjection to the State’s laws which will prohibit only those actions that threaten the well-being of the individual and the stability of the State - a substantive foundation for a State that is governed by a consent that is outlined in a written constitution (codified in statute law) laying down the basis on which the citizens will consider themselves bound to abide by government decisions and which the government of that State must abide by or be legitimately defied.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Rousseau (C18th France) supposed that, ‘since no man has any natural authority over his fellows and since force alone bestows no right, all legitimate authority among men must be based on covenants’. This ‘social contract’ needs to be incorporated in a written State Constitution supported by sanctions against those who would conspire to flout it (imposed by an independent policing and legal system). A genuine substantive social contract requires delineation of the agreed rights to be exchanged [material interest in territory] and the consideration [ground rent and subsistence] to be accorded those who exchange them otherwise, as is presently the case, the ‘contract’ only consists of the surrender of freedoms in exchange for State ‘protection’, a nebulous conception. A substantial majority of a citizenry’s acceptance of themselves as subject to the laws of the State is a necessary condition for the State’s long term survival, when a government denies its citizens the right to a stake in the territory of the State it does nothing to enhance any citizen’s affinity to the State (in most States it was, and is, bought by status, access to wealth or/and acceptance of uncompensated subordination) and threatens a government’s need for the bulk of the population to positively identify with it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    *Ctrl-C + Ctrl+V alert*
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/

    :bebored:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrainyBengali)
    *Ctrl-C + Ctrl+V alert*
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/

    :bebored:
    BrainyBengali, Thank you for the link to the interesting article on Rawls. The
    ‘enlightenment’ thinkers from whom his philosophy was derived spent much time philosophising about the rights of man without spelling out the material ramifications on land law that follow from an acceptance of the notions they, and Rawls, propounded.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by landscape2014)
    BrainyBengali, Thank you for the link to the interesting article on Rawls. The
    ‘enlightenment’ thinkers from whom his philosophy was derived spent much time philosophising about the rights of man without spelling out the material ramifications on land law that follow from an acceptance of the notions they, and Rawls, propounded.
    Velcome
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Didn't read
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Bloodline was originally the ubiquitous source of tribal birthright (automatic group membership) however developed English common-law ruled that a person’s status was vested at birth, and was based upon their place of birth. People born within the Monarch’s patrimony owed allegiance to the sovereign and were entitled to the Monarch’s protection (as the Monarch saw fit); they had the right to enjoy the benefit of common and statute (Monarch’s) law as subjects of the Monarch. Common Law interpreted nationality as the birthright of all persons born within any territory over which the Monarch (and the senior functionaries of non- monarchical States) unilaterally claimed sovereignty (eminent domain) thus precluding the acknowledgement of an individual person’s (subjects) material right of the soil (jus soli) limiting their birthright to subjective nationality (the position in States world-wide; responsibility to support the establishments of territorial States without a concomitant right to a material interest in the States).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ayn Rand (US 20th) in ‘Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal’ writes, ‘in a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary [as per Rousseau]. Men [and women presumably] are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions and interests dictate’. In order to realize such a society everyone would have to be a capitalist; that is have a certain amount of capital that is an inalienable (unchallengable and untradeable) birthright otherwise none of the freedoms she advances for the individuals populating her idealized state could be realized. If individuals are to be in a position to decline the fruits of civilization by right then possession of the minimum capital necessary for subsistence (food and shelter) of right would be necessary to allow the latitude she envisages for dealings between individuals. “Remember that there is no such dichotomy as ‘human rights’ versus ‘property rights.’ No human rights can exist without property rights.”- [and those rights lie in the common domain].
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Present States are all territorial States (glorified tribes) not nation States. The ‘nation State’ as it is generally understood is a misnomer in today’s, and yesterday’s, world for nowhere on the planet is there, or has there ever been, a nation vested with a constitutional right of eminent domain, ultimate authority that is conditionally transferred in perpetuity to State authority figures as long as they observe statutory conditions (enumerated in a constitution). The bulk of the world’s populations entertain the misconception that they live in nation States when in fact their status is that of a disinherited human being subject to the direction of a territorial State’s authority figures and those who can exercise financial coercion over them. Nations do not have an eventual power of eminent domain (ultimate authority), those in charge of the State do and they claim it unilaterally not subjectively because of the willing acquiescence by the individuals that compose nations in a presumption that the sum of individuals who form a nation cannot be collectively possessed of eminent domain over the common domain that is the land of their birth. The past is irrecoverable we cannot recompense the dead but we can treat with equity the living and their descendents. The chief philosophic element in the evolution of capitalism to date is the separation of humans, by their authority figures, from jus soli (their capital) using organisations created by them to perpetuate their disarticulation. The denial of the individual their right in the land of their birth (jus soli) and the exploitation of their patrimony without yielding to them the means of subsistence and a monetary consideration (ground rent) is the major philosophic omission in the intellectual evolution of capitalism. States that countenance the denial of each individual of their population an incontrovertible birthright (all present States) have only an affected interest in equitable individual property rights. The bulk of the world’s population are denied their right to enjoy jus soli, they are the subjects of those who can afford to deny them it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Posted from TSR Mobile

    I believe that everyone is born with the right to have the opportunity to be self sufficient in life such that they don't struggle on a day to day basis. That means providing welfare for those that need it and borrowing from those with more opportunities i life in order to do so which in the long run benefits everyone.
    However i do believe that one can commit a crime so heinous as to warrent this right being revoked (this is putting aside the argument about how responsible we really are for our actions).
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: July 23, 2017
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Would you rather
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.