No such thing as rights.

[Mr Hyde]

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.

-Thomas Jefferson

First let me state that you cannot derive a ought from an is.


Second: Inalienable rights do not exist. Inalienable rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and neither of these can provide anything inalienable.

Rights are installed only by government or politics and without them there is noone to enforce them. In a state of nature beyond society the only right that exists is might in that the golden rule of nature is that there are no golden rules. In nature there is only survival of the fittest where morality is unheard of.

Amongst nature there is no need of justification for any action where survival revolves around the fittest.

If there were inalienable rights, the government or anyone else would not need to try to uphold them, you would always have them no matter what. Obviously, rights are only social rights that other people have to respect.

Human rights do not exist.
Human rights are rights that belong to human beings simply by virtue of
being human. A right to X indicates that an individual has, or ought to
have, a legitimate claim to X that obligates other individuals not to
deny the individual X and obligates the government to protect the
individual's possession of X. Given this understanding of rights, to
qualify as a right, a proposed right must meet at least two minimal
conditions. The first is that there actually are other individuals to
be so obligated. The second is that there is an effective government
mechanism for protecting the object of the proposed right. Human beings
may inhabit circumstances or contexts in which either or both
conditions are not met without losing their humanity. In such
circumstances or contexts, it would be inconsistent to claim that such
human beings would continue to possess rights. Since there are
circumstances or contexts in which it does not make sense to claim that
a human being has a right to anything, human rights cannot exist. Human
beings cannot have rights simply by virtue of being human.

Universal rights don't exist just as universal morals don't.

People are owed nothing by that of nature or others.

The concept that people are owed anything comes from the fallacy that the casual agent of transaction is benevolent.

There exists no observable trait as noone is entitled to anything.

There only exists what a man can procure and what is coercively taken from them by that of either force or blackmail.

[hoope]

To some point you might be right
but what if i told you about something that guarantee people right that are lost.

i have no reply to all you dark ideas.. but all am asking is just read carefully
the below .. & the link @ the end .. you'll definately find the answer.

1. The Right to Life
The first and the foremost basic right is the right to live and respect human life. The Holy Quran lays down:

Whosoever kills a human being without (any reason like) man slaughter, or corruption on earth, it is as though he had killed all mankind ... (5:32)

As far as the question of taking life in retaliation for murder or the question of punishment for spreading corruption on this earth is con- cerned, it can be decided only by a proper and competent court of law. If there is any war with any nation or country, it can be decided only by a properly established government. In any case, no human being has any right by himself to take human life in retaliation or for causing mischief on this earth. Therefore it is incumbent on every human being that under no circumstances should he be guilty of taking a human life. If anyone has murdered a human being, it is as if he has slain the entire human race. These instructions have been repeated in the Holy Quran in another place saying:

Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law ... (6:151)

Here also homicide has been distinguished from destruction of life carried out in pursuit of justice. Only a proper and competent court will be able to decide whether or not an individual has forfeited his right to life by disregarding the right to life and peace of other human beings. The Prophet, may God's blessings be on him, has declared homicide as the greatest sin only next to polytheism. The Tradition of the Prophet reads: "The greatest sins are to associate something with God and to kill human beings." In all these verses of the Quran and the Traditions of the Prophet the word 'soul' (nafs) has been used in general terms without any distinction or particularization which might have lent itself to the elucidation that the persons belong- ing to one's nation, the citizens of one's country, the people of a particular race or religion should not be killed. The injunction applies to all human beings and the destruction of human life in itself has been prohibited.

2. The Right to the Safety of Life
Immediately after the verse of the Holy Quran which has been mentioned in connection with the right to life, God has said: "And whoever saves a life it is as though he had saved the lives of all mankind" (5:32). There can be several forms of saving man from death. A man may be ill or wounded, irrespective of his nationality, race or colour. If you know that he is in need of your help, then it is your duty that you should arrange for his treatment for disease or wound. If he is dying of starvation, then it is your duty to feed him so that he can ward off death. If he is drowning or his life is at stake, then it is your duty to save him. You will be surprised to hear that the Talmud, the religious book of the Jews, contains a verse of similar nature, but records it in altogether different form. It says: "Whoever destroyed a life of the Israelite, in the eyes of the Scripture, it is as if he destroyed the whole world. And whoever protected and saved one life of the Israelite, in the light of the Scripture, it is as if he saved the whole world." Talmud also contains the view that if a non-Israelite is drowning and you tried to save him then you are a sinner. Can it be given a name other than racialism? We regard it as our duty to save every human life, because it is thus that we have been enjoined in the Holy Quran. On the other hand, if they regard it necessary to save the life of a human being at all, it should be the life of an Israelite. As far as other people are concerned, according to this view, they do not seem to be human enough to deserve protection of their persons. In their literature the concept of 'Goyim' for which the English word 'Gentile' and the Arabic word ummi (illiterate) is used, is that they enjoy no human rights; human rights are reserved only for the children of Israel. The Quran has mentioned this belief of the Israelites and quotes the Jews saying: "There is no blame on us (for anything we may do) with regard to the unlettered folk (i.e. the ummi)" (3:75).

3. The Right to a Basic Standard of Life
Speaking about the economic rights the Holy Quran enjoins upon its followers:

And in their wealth there is acknowledged right for the needy and destitute. (51:19)

The words of this injunction show that it is a categorical and un- qualified order. Furthermore this injunction was given in Makkah where there was no Muslim society in existence and where generally the Muslims had to come in contact with the population of the disbelievers. Therefore the clear meaning of this verse is that anyone who asks for help and anyone who is suffering from deprivation has a right in the property and wealth of the Muslims; irrespective of the fact whether he belongs to this nation or to that nation, to this country or to that country, to this race or to that race. If you are in a position to help and a needy person asks you for help or if you come to know that he is in need, then it is your duty to help him. God has established his right over you, which you have to honour as a Muslim.



4. Individual's Right to Freedom
Islam has clearly and categorically forbidden the primitive practice of capturing a free man, to make him a slave or to sell him into slavery. On this point the clear and unequivocal words of the Prophet (S) are as follows: "There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money" (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majjah). The words of this Tradition of the Prophet are also general, they have not been qualified or made applicable to a particular nation, race, country or followers of a particular religion. The Europeans take great pride in claiming that they abolished slavery from the world, though they had the decency to do so only in the middle of the last century. Before this, these Western powers had been raiding Africa on a very large scale, capturing their free men, putting them in bondage and transporting them to their new colonies. The treatment which they have meted out to these unfortunate people has been worse than the treatment given to animals. The books written by the Western people themselves bear testimony to this fact.



http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/B..._hri/index.htm

http://www.jamaat.org/islam/HumanRightsPolitical.html

[RichardHresko]

First let me state that you cannot derive a ought from an is.


Second: Inalienable rights do not exist. Inalienable rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and neither of these can provide anything inalienable.

Rights are installed only by government or politics and without them there is noone to enforce them. In a state of nature beyond society the only right that exists is might in that the golden rule of nature is that there are no golden rules. In nature there is only survival of the fittest where morality is unheard of.

Amongst nature there is no need of justification for any action where survival revolves around the fittest.

If there were inalienable rights, the government or anyone else would not need to try to uphold them, you would always have them no matter what. Obviously, rights are only social rights that other people have to respect.

Human rights do not exist.
Human rights are rights that belong to human beings simply by virtue of
being human. A right to X indicates that an individual has, or ought to
have, a legitimate claim to X that obligates other individuals not to
deny the individual X and obligates the government to protect the
individual's possession of X. Given this understanding of rights, to
qualify as a right, a proposed right must meet at least two minimal
conditions. The first is that there actually are other individuals to
be so obligated. The second is that there is an effective government
mechanism for protecting the object of the proposed right. Human beings
may inhabit circumstances or contexts in which either or both
conditions are not met without losing their humanity. In such
circumstances or contexts, it would be inconsistent to claim that such
human beings would continue to possess rights. Since there are
circumstances or contexts in which it does not make sense to claim that
a human being has a right to anything, human rights cannot exist. Human
beings cannot have rights simply by virtue of being human.

Universal rights don't exist just as universal morals don't.

People are owed nothing by that of nature or others.

The concept that people are owed anything comes from the fallacy that the casual agent of transaction is benevolent.

There exists no observable trait as noone is entitled to anything.

There only exists what a man can procure and what is coercively taken from them by that of either force or blackmail.

There are several problems with your argument. I will list a few and reserve the right to go back for others at a later time.

1) A right is 'inalienable' if it can not be legitimately taken away. This does not mean it can not be taken away, only that it can not be justifiably taken away. Therefore one may have an inalienable right and still need protection of that right.

2) That universal rights and universal morals do not exist is a claim, not a statement of fact. For you to use these claims you must first justify that they are well-founded.

3) That there is no 'observable' trait does not mean that something does not exist. Energy is not directly observable, but physics is inconceivable without it (what is observed is the effects of energy, not energy itself). If you think energy is directly observed, think about what color it is (no, photons don't save you here, since the color is not the energy but an indication of wavelength), etc.

If you like, we can turn this into a discussion of Leviathan, which is where you seem to want to take this.