Unalienable right to life
Scroll to see replies
Original post by mrsuperguy
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).
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).
Thank you for your input. 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. Obtaining food and shelter in a primitive undefined open landscape is a different matter from obtaining the necessities of life in a delineated environment in which people can no longer seek out their own food and shelter and act as sovereign individuals. For primitive and civilized humans alike access to food and shelter are essential to maintain life and for those developed communities that purport to embrace the principle that every individual has a right to life the proof of their genuine commitment necessitates the philosophic acknowledgement by them of every individuals’ material interest in land (primeval, inalienable, jus soli) the practical realisation of which presumes the provision of an inalienable right to food and shelter without being subject to another human beings conception of their entitlements. Those who express a belief in a right to life must accept that it is not welfare that the poor and destitute receive but inadequate consideration for the appropriation of their birthright (jus soli) by those who are in a position to generate surpluses out of it.
Original post by landscape2014
Should every child born into a group of humans have an inalienable right to a proportionate material interest in the group’s territory?
What? this seems to be a different question than thread title. Proportionate or proportional is in connection to how much a person may or may not acquire. though the wording appears to suggest equality based on material quantity, "right to life" is not been dependent on how much "material interest" one acquires.
Inalienable or unalienable rights often reflect on works of John Locke.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
For myself, the question of "right" does not extinguish importance and moral obligation a society pertains to all members. Life, if not respected, will destroy all other possible accessible achievements; e.g. liberties and pursuit for happiness. This "right to life" is not held to citizens only, and is for all humans - in the womb, birthed, old, etc.
Considering that taking of life prevents all other liberties and "rights" from being achieved, there is moral obligation to not act in a way that would kill another and prevent the killings of others where capable.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
What? this seems to be a different question than thread title. Proportionate or proportional is in connection to how much a person may or may not acquire. though the wording appears to suggest equality based on material quantity, "right to life" is not been dependent on how much "material interest" one acquires.
Inalienable or unalienable rights often reflect on works of John Locke.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
For myself, the question of "right" does not extinguish importance and moral obligation a society pertains to all members. Life, if not respected, will destroy all other possible accessible achievements; e.g. liberties and pursuit for happiness. This "right to life" is not held to citizens only, and is for all humans - in the womb, birthed, old, etc.
Considering that taking of life prevents all other liberties and "rights" from being achieved, there is moral obligation to not act in a way that would kill another and prevent the killings of others where capable.
Inalienable or unalienable rights often reflect on works of John Locke.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
For myself, the question of "right" does not extinguish importance and moral obligation a society pertains to all members. Life, if not respected, will destroy all other possible accessible achievements; e.g. liberties and pursuit for happiness. This "right to life" is not held to citizens only, and is for all humans - in the womb, birthed, old, etc.
Considering that taking of life prevents all other liberties and "rights" from being achieved, there is moral obligation to not act in a way that would kill another and prevent the killings of others where capable.
Thank you for your response. The questions relationship to the title lies in the symbiotic relationship humans beings have with the Earth, the source of their physiological driven material needs. Securing access to food and shelter from the earth gives them, like any other animal, a material interest in it. Sentient humans conscious of their mental superiority over all other animal life perceive themselves possessors of an inanimate earth which their needs, wants and competitive behaviour in monetised societies lays a price on the components essential for the realisation of every humans right to life, especially land. That right predicated as it is on food and shelter makes practical realisation of that right dependent on an absolute inalienable interest in the earth (jus soli) that in a delineated monetised society requires the payment of a continuous consideration (annual ground rent and subsistence - food and shelter) to all individuals for their territorial donation, their exclusion from and circumscribed occupation of any part of the common domain if the society which they find themselves in actually believes in the philosophic fiction that all humans have a right to life. 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.
If the current legal notion with regard to restitution, ‘that no one should be able to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of their neighbour’ applied to each individual’s birthright then the recognition of a fundamental material right in land (jus soli) should be sine qua non, a right implicit in the unsolicited acquisition of nationality at birth (concomitant with the civil obligations the individuals of a nation are required to embrace - which would restrict liberty and circumscribe certain actions that could bring particular individuals happiness). Without such a right any overbearing individual’s or group’s selfish psychology can never be logically challenged within a society because immediate fulfilment of self- interest is an animal instinct that will be invariably favoured by egoistical individuals and organised groups who attain economic or political precedence over populations whose disparate individual strategic interests within a society present difficulties that require the exercise of an insightful philosophic wisdom which appears to be forever in short supply. Plato (Greece, C4thb.c.) struggled to find a philosopher king in his age (or enough of the sympathetic strong right arms necessary to maintain them in power against self-serving vested interests), no subsequent age has found such a paragon of virtue to manage human affairs either.
The physiocrat Francois Quesney (C18th France,) observed, ‘That ownership of landed property and moveable wealth should be guaranteed to those who are lawful possessors; for security of ownership is the essential foundation of the economic order of society’. In the case of land it is security of occupation, not ownership, which is the essential foundation of economic order – all property, except the undisturbed earth, incorporates an element of labour that creates good title (which can be freely traded), undisturbed earth cannot, its occupation (with the right to exclude all others) has to be recognised by an effective authority. In a just State the nation, for the protection of its citizen’s stake (birthright), needs to set up in the case of land guarantees and safeguards against the threats to all citizen’s jus soli implicit in any theory of property which it need not necessarily set up in the case of any other form of property (which will incorporate an element of labour that undisturbed earth cannot) a position Winston Churchill (UK C20th) recognised,” Land, which is a necessity of all human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position - land, I say, differs from other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions”.
This is too prestige for me
If an inalienable right to life is to be accepted as a fundamental human right then an inalienable subsumed material interest in the Earth (birthright) has to be recognised in order to give concrete recognition to an expressed belief in all people’s inalienable right to life and that interest has to be legally enforceable through a written constitution (to protect all individuals’ interest from annexation by avaricious members of their society). Since people would have no specific claim on a particular area of the territorial State then they must be furnished with at least the means for basic subsistence (food and shelter) as a right if an inalienable right to life is to be adopted as the fundamental foundation of society. Individuals who contribute their interest (birthright and capital) in a material resource (the national territory) to a monetised society have to receive a consideration for their contribution to a financialised State with the provision (directly or indirectly) of the basis of subsistence when exclusive authority is claimed over the patrimony of a nation by those who have the ability purchase any part or all of it (if a constitutional right to subsistence was not decreed it would make the individuals right to life dependent on the character of a wealthy minority – a polyarchic plutocratic State). The fiction that the State (or an anthropomorphic representative of it) has sovereignty over territory has to be succeeded by the fiction that the individuals of the nation have ultimate sovereignty (expressed through referenda) which they consensually delegate to the authority figures of a State who are constitutionally bound to hold the national territory in perpetuity as an inalienable trust for future generations.
The striving of the dispossessed for security and sufficiency, which freedom for the corporatist has denied them, has been replaced with the pessimism of insufficiency and insecurity born of an inability to analyse their situation and act to change the existing political settlement; to claim their inheritance. Those who claim to represent their constituencies interests have analysed
their situation and decided to accept the corporate capitalist settlement (as opposed to a commonwealth capitalist one) as the basis of their actions on behalf of their constituencies, re-claiming the population’s material interest in land (jus soli) is not part of any political agenda because there is no appreciation of it, and because there is no demand for it by the electorate mass ignorance and disinterest has made slaves to corporate capital and credit of us all. 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 (in general people presume the right to consume 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 domesticated, disenfranchised and disinherited from time immemorial it is].
their situation and decided to accept the corporate capitalist settlement (as opposed to a commonwealth capitalist one) as the basis of their actions on behalf of their constituencies, re-claiming the population’s material interest in land (jus soli) is not part of any political agenda because there is no appreciation of it, and because there is no demand for it by the electorate mass ignorance and disinterest has made slaves to corporate capital and credit of us all. 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 (in general people presume the right to consume 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 domesticated, disenfranchised and disinherited from time immemorial it is].
(edited 6 years ago)
Hereditary membership of a State has not normally brought with it hereditary rights in the territory of the State for everyone (jus soli), hereditary right for the majority was usually limited to group membership – a tribal/patriarchal entitlement – an assumption of responsibility to the group without the recognition of material rights in the group’s territory; traditionally those who wielded coercive power appropriated the national territory as their exclusive domain and reinforced their land grab with a legal code that supported their and their supporters mastery over the territory that formed the State they had contrived the purpose of which was to extract value from surpluses by public (State) taxes and private (rents and debts) taxes from the subordinated inhabitants on settled land and disburse the surplus land to supporters.
Original post by landscape2014
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.
Do you mean you've got lots to write?
I'm not sure doing a Post Per Paragraph is making this particularly easy or enjoyable to read. What exactly are you aiming for here?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Reality Check
Do you mean you've got lots to write?
I'm not sure doing a Post Per Paragraph is making this particularly easy or enjoyable to read. What exactly are you aiming for here?
I'm not sure doing a Post Per Paragraph is making this particularly easy or enjoyable to read. What exactly are you aiming for here?
A response to the question
Original post by landscape2014
A response to the question
Oh, right. Keep going then.
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. Individuals will support governments that support them. Dependence on the consent or largesse of those favoured with privilege or property would fatally compromise any individual’s claim of territorial right (jus soli), that right has to be made statutorily inalienable (incontestable and not tradable) as per the US Declaration of Independence. The 5th amendment to the US Constitution forbids the taking of private property for public use without compensation, if this principle is to be considered to have a universal relevancy then the taking of what is accepted as nature’s largesse (the common domain) for oneself and denying others use of it should be subject to a consideration paid to those who are excluded in an equitable, delineated, monetized society, a remuneration that recognizes every present and future citizen’s inalienable interest by the payment of annual ground rent from any person or organization who makes exclusive private use of a part of a territory that is considered the common domain in which every citizen has a material interest, an interest the occupier supports because of their philosophic acknowledgement of every individuals’ inalienable right to life.
(edited 6 years ago)
Since property owners from time immemorial have dominated States’ legislatures laws in relation to property were, not surprisingly, more concerned to support liberties associated with a privileged individual’s legalized property rights than protect all individuals’ inalienable right to life from the common domain, a political development that de Tocqueville (France C19th) regretfully observed in the early C19th USA, ’Can it be believed that a democracy which has overthrown the feudal system and kings will retreat from tradesmen and capitalists?’ It is an observation that applies to all present ‘democratic’ States who practice forms of government determined by ‘Lex Mercantia’, the divine right of capital and credit. Why should every child born into a group of humans have an inalienable right to a proportionate interest in the group’s territory? Children contribute nothing to the security or economic viability of the nation their birth is a deferred contribution to the nation’s survival (a new consumer and, hopefully, a contributor to the national economy, replacing those who are leaving it). No one is in a position to say which child will or will not contribute to the State’s perpetuation and prosperity; their unsolicited enrolment into a nation entitles one child citizen as much as another to their proportion of the State’s territory - their birthright – in the 1930’s depression Woody Guthrie (US) sang, ‘this land is my land, this land is your land‘. His lyrics suggest an embracement of shared common heritage (the Earth - the common domain); of equitably construed national citizenship (which is totally lacking in the land of his birth – as it is throughout the world).
(edited 6 years ago)
A theory of society precedes a theory of the State because the bulk of any society has to, consciously or unconsciously, adhere to a set of mores that promotes the cohesion of that society, and those mores, in deference to Ockham’s razor, have to be as few as possible in order to embrace as many of the population as possible within the jurisdiction of authority figures. A almost total global disinterest in the philosophical foundations of the State has allowed its raison d’etre to be determined by the material mores of Lex Mercantia the divine right of capital and credit which has, paradoxically, resulted in the delivery of mass consumption (want fulfilment) and mass discontent (identity crises). Organised personalities compete to influence a State’s legislation and the hoi polloi who show little interest in the machinations of those organised personalities allow vested interests to control their State by default. A belief that all human beings have a right to life (divine and/or inalienable) that no other rights or legal construction by the functionaries of the State or authority figures can subvert is a philosophic fiction that requires a belief in equity to be held by those able to hold their fellow humans to account if a sound ethical foundation is the object of those who wish to construct a coherent materialistic State.
(edited 6 years ago)
The expansion and concentration of human populations has brought into sharp focus the conflict between all individuals’ right to life - provision of food and shelter - and legally created disobligated private property rights which in the present manifestation of capitalism effectively extinguishes individuals’ ‘inalienable’ right to life if they can only secure their subsistence as the subjects of those who can engage in disobligated (to the individuals who constitute the nation) control or purchase of it. Property gives power to the individual, embracing every individual’s inalienable property (jus soli) gives everyone the power to demand a consideration for another’s use of it. Disposing of property disposes of power; only inalienable property can produce Rawl’s initial situation of equality and to maintain that initial situation disposal by any means other than death cannot be entertained; an untradeable property right in territory gives substance to the assertion of an inalienable right to a life independent of the vagaries of another’s personality.
I hoped this thread would generate discussion of the right of all individuals to jus soli (material interest in land) and its support by lex soli (land law). Self-sufficiency was (and for some still is) the state of humans who roam over a territory sufficient for their needs. Population density precludes such self-sufficiency in developed civilised societies but not jus soli; an individual right that requires payment in cash or kind to compensate individuals for the contribution of their birthright (jus soli - about an acre in the UK) to the territory of the State. That contribution demands from those who make use of a national's birthright the minimum necessary to provide the shelter and subsistence they are prevented from providing for themselves. Welfare is something a supplicant receives, a 'favour', a handout that people are expected to be grateful for. They should be incensed that they are treated as a burden on a State that ingores their birthright and encourages a privileged minority to exploit it without payment.
Original post by landscape2014
I hoped this thread would generate discussion of the right of all individuals to jus soli (material interest in land) and its support by lex soli (land law). Self-sufficiency was (and for some still is) the state of humans who roam over a territory sufficient for their needs. Population density precludes such self-sufficiency in developed civilised societies but not jus soli; an individual right that requires payment in cash or kind to compensate individuals for the contribution of their birthright (jus soli - about an acre in the UK) to the territory of the State. That contribution demands from those who make use of a national's birthright the minimum necessary to provide the shelter and subsistence they are prevented from providing for themselves. Welfare is something a supplicant receives, a 'favour', a handout that people are expected to be grateful for. They should be incensed that they are treated as a burden on a State that ingores their birthright and encourages a privileged minority to exploit it without payment.
So is the idea that the State ought to provide shelter and subsistence to everyone as their birthright?
The idea proposed is that those who run the State adhere to the assertion that every individual has a right to life and so is as entitled as anyone else in the territory to jus soli, a material legal interest in the State into which they are born. The functionaries of the State have to recognise jus soli as an inalienable right in the territory that requires a consideration to be paid [ground rent] by those who make exclusive use of any sub-division of it be they private individuals or the State. The State in recognition of the individuals' donation of their territorial interest has to provide the shelter and subsistence that the individual is no longer in a position to provide themselves because of their contribution.
The ethical basis of the philosophy exposed for consideration thus far requires a concurrent exposition of the mechanisms required to realize its implimentation. Starting with the fact that each individual in the UK would be entitled to about one acre then if the land was divided equally a problem arises if we propose that each individual takes physical possession of an acre - this would not be equitable since some would receive barren moorland, others lush farmland and others lucrative urban plots. To be equitable all individuals would have an equal interest in every sub-division of the land, that is a sixty millionth part of the moorland,farmland and urban area. That being the case no individual would be able to occupy any particular sub-division so a bureacratic mechanism needs to be put in place that a) preserves each individual's jus soli and b) allows exclusive occupation of territory (the fundamental tenet of property). Jus soli is now no longer a tangible concept it is a 'chose in action' (intangible legal entity) which can be enforced by law if it is accepted that the national territory is a common domain and the birthright of every individual constituting the nation. It follows that in an equitable monetised society any person who exclusively occupies part of the common domain should be required to pay a consideration to the titular owners (the citizens - rather than subjects - of the nation) for their legal exclusion from it. There would be no need for anyone to move the monarch's technical ownership of the UK would be extinguished (the position of the monarch as Head of State need not be affected). The legal notion that the area constituting the UK is ultimately owned by the monarch as feudal overlord would be superceded by the legal notion that all the area of the UK can be leased from the nation (NOT the State which will act as an agent for the nation). All incumbents (freehold or leasehold) would become lifetime 1st leaseholders of the areas they presently control; for instance at 1p per square metre the Duke of Buccleugh would pay £11.39 million p.a., the Duke of Atholl £5.92 million p.a.,the Duchy of Cornwall £5.44 million p.a. and the Duchy of Lancaster about £1.87 million p.a.(if they retained exclusive use of the land they presently lease or hold freehold title to). The average detached house would pay £27 p.a. a terraced one £13 p.a. One penny a square metre is about £40/acre, ground rent would deliver £2.4 billion p.a.
(edited 6 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Loosing virginity
- I'm 28 but still I haven't any friends
- No Uk passport but I’ve lived here my whole life
- Taking a gamble
- Should I go on a break with my partner?
- Can I get a good job after college?
- Would you end all human life instantly if you could?
- I feel like I've failed at life
- Understanding Others' Expectations
- Which Uni?
- Another rejection - Yippee
- TV shows make me feel like my life is boring
- Med Reject
- Spiritual teachings, karma, loa
- Lack of male attention in yr13
- OCR A Level Religious Studies Religion and ethics H573/02 - 14 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Uncertainty about going to university
- Virgin Shaming, and You
- schizophrenia?
- waiting for your thoughts
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
