-DVD Version: P1. The Nature and Origin of Human Rights

[OrangeManIce]

4:00 

[zonsb]

Rights are a product of reason. Go into a jungle and try to reason with a tiger or a virus and see if you can get them to agree with you.

Why don't animals have agreements? Because they don't have the ability to reason.

“I’ve often wondered whether the difference between mankind and animals is not so much the ability to reason as it is the ability to rationalize.” -- Milton Friedman

[CASLUVR]

@zonsb agreements = arguments?

[zonsb]

@CASLUVR Circles = squares?

[CASLUVR]

@zonsb sorry i miss read you.

[WinsomeVagabond]

Definitions:

Responsibility = That which an individual must do to survive.

Right = something and individual can do for themselves without the aid of another.

Duty = Is the choice and individual makes to support, aid, and/or protect another individual's responsibilities and rights.

You have a responsibility to eat but not a right to food without effort. You have a right to produce and gather food for yourself. You may choose through your efforts to feed another.

[WinsomeVagabond]

@WinsomeVagabond The specifics are finalized by interesting discussion and ability.

[zonsb]

The source of rights are agreements/contracts among men and women. Go into the jungle and see if tigers,snakes and viruses acknowledge rights. Agreements are the source of rights, not battles and wars. Wars are for ruling class elites that start wars and dupe people to fight the wars.

If you own yourself then you can say no thanks to ANY offer. People in government and the lame-stream media refuse to acknowledge that.Government is men and women providing services at the barrel of agun.

[WinsomeVagabond]

@zonsb If the source of rights is by mutual agreements then whose agreements. In the jungle rights, even the rights of tigers and viruses, are there honed to its fines point. Every creature has the right to survive the question is do they have the ability.

[bluntpunk83]

"rights are won on the battlefield"

ok have fun fighting over the last scraps on earth. assholes.

we can do this differently. ask me how.

[caldreamin09]

This is a kick ass video!! I wish more people understood these concepts, then our country would not be in the fiscal and regulatory mess we are in now. On to part II

[GeorgeMozosko]

@thesoria1

Everybody look what's going down. Buffalo Springfield. You have probably heard it in a lot of movies about the 60's and 70's like We are Marshall.

[fluffyc4]

I agree Gary. And for those who wish to challenge me- I will stand.

[garythemessage]

I disagree. There is most definitely a concrete definition of what rights are. There's really only one, and everything else branches from that one right. It is the right of self-ownership. I own my body, thus I own my labor, thus I own the fruits of my labor, thus I own my property. My right to self-ownership extends only as far as the next persons self-ownership and their property. If my body or property causes injury to you, I am liable for the damages. It's easy in concept, hard in practice.

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

For yours and everyone else's benefit:

/watch?v=qhdcymNtKRs ("A Major Philosophical Mistake of Aron Ra " by FlowCell)

/watch?v=ftd-AiOz_KI ("Understanding Liberty: Answering My Critics " by FlowCell)

[bxtrem]

This movies are presented in a totalitarian way ! not a democratic way neither a colectivist way .... he treats threats both regimes unequal to make them unequal ... this dude is an idiot ! ...

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

@bxtrem

Cool story, bro.

[MazzarothSufferer]

A right is a created concept of what you "should" be promised. Rights are imaginary, if based solely on the theory of evolution. You're entitled to nothing. You're granted something based on your circumstance. Survival of the Fittest guarantees its namesake by what's already been programmed. War-gained abilities are just a part of that. There's no "should", only the reality.

[Eldeecue]

Get Not Yet Remembered off this shit right now.

Using Brian Eno in this way is an insult to his contribution to music.

[billyboy647]

There is no logic that demonstrates the gaining of rights must result from war. Theoretically, a tyrant could have a change of heart, things could be peacefully accomplished that would result in an increase of essential rights. I only know of one case that has happened; the Soviet Union breakup into individual republics. This is an exception. The rule in the past has been that states do not give rights to the people, the people must take them by either political or military force.

[3potassium40]

@billyboy647

That was caused by the economic collapse of the parent country. The Cold War was the first war in history that could not be fought in a total war situation and was limited to strategic actions. The rights gained by the people of the Russian republics was a direct result of the strategic battlefield of the Cold War.

[asierra1492]

@billyboy647

You think the soviet rulers "had a change of heart" or that theyr failed plan had that society on the brink that they were foced to have a "change of heart"? I think its the latter.

[adammhblack]

When is somebody going to mention the vast ammounts of rights and reform acts which haven't been won on the battlefield. Should I mention that all of Britain's numerous and important reform acts (with the exclusion of Women's Rights) since 1832 have come about peacefully through parliament? Britain is a country whose power is steeped in the reaps of war, yet none of these acts were gained because of it.

[DefLepX10]

he said ultimate source. If it was not for the British people winning their parliamentary freedoms against the monarchy then they wouldnt have these peaceful reform acts.

[Virtueman1]

I agree with previous posters. I think these videos are aweseome but rights cannot be seen as a result of war only, that sounds a bit crazy. They are secured by protection and through force only if necessary.

Check out Ayn Rand and her view of individual rights, I think they make more sense.

[USAPatriot45]

Although I see your point about war, ultimatly that is how the come into being. How do you take away rights? By force. How do you perserve your rights by force or the show that you have the ability to fight for them. I am a huge fan of Ayn Rand books and I do think she has an interesting view on rights.

[verymaddog]

rights are born in the battlefield ? you are FUCKING nuts.

.

You are not an individualist, you are a right wing nutcase - you are , get this, a collectivist.

[mudsling3]

Without your verbal attack in this battlefield of ideas, how is your right to freedom of speech secured? Rights must be born in a vacuum then? Ha Ha Ha

[verymaddog]

you are laughing at your own stupidity right ?

[USAPatriot45]

Read the Declaration of Independence. You will see a list of ways our rights were violated, that we tried peacfully, and now are fighting and a seperate nation. War ultimatly decides rights.

[verymaddog]

You don't have the right to kill or steal from your neighbor and your neighbor doesn't have any such rights either. And that's not the result of any war, it's just common sense morality. According to the declaration of independence rights are inherent to man - "god given" - not war given.

[USAPatriot45]

Morality comes from religion. If not than at any given time people can come a consensus that killing and stealing are ok. No man can compel another to act a certain way. Morality and ethics boil down to religion. However that is a different debate entirely. War ensures the rights that we are given. If we choose not to stand up for our rights(by force like in the revolution) we will lose them.

[Bellator656]

@USAPatriot45 That's incredibly stupid. Obviously, religions gain their (scarce) moral values from humans, not the other way around.

[DefLepX10]

right wing nutcase? nice usage of ad hominem.

[verymaddog]

@DefLepX10 No ad hominem - Im calling a spade a spade

[MyBrotherMan]

If rights are something that come into being when a people agrees on them, then they are granted, therefore they can be revoked. In order for them to belong to the individual, they must be inherent.

It's better said that rights are "secured" on the battlefield, implying they existed before. Many think that rights must be secure to exist; I would say that rights' existence is the reason to bother securing them.

You can boil a right down to what one must respect in another to live peacefully.

[Theevagabond]

"The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society. "

Can someone explain the "only in so far as this may be compatible..." part for me?

[apassionateman]

This is excellent, well designed, delivered, and should be taught in all schools in an early grade.  It is important that we all know the choices available, and the implications of those choices to be an intelligent voter in a democratic society.

[JemyM]

This video is as distorted as the idea of classes, displayed purely in black and white, oversimplifing with abstract words like "freedom", creating division where there are none. You are creating dogma. Individual rights requires your neighbor to share them to work which leads to a moment 22. Collectivism/individualism is an illusion, so is your presentation of people vs government. You also display historical origin as source, and you act as theres never been any evolution of rights.

[caltrop69]

JemyM : Claims without backing aren't compelling.

I presume that English is not your native language?

[JemyM]

500 characters per post isn't enough to deal with the basic flaws in this video.

Psychology and History are essential in political philosophy.

The video treats American relation between power/people as universal. That's a fail. Governments have evolved differently in other nations.

It also treat the "collective" as some sort of choice, when it's a compulsory need in most humans to be part of a group (religion, ideology, gang etc) ESPECIALLY if they feel threatened.

[caltrop69]

This is true. 500 characters forces you to par your point down to bare bones.

Certain cultures are more adept at pooling resources. I think the concept of 'voluntary" vs "involuntary" is universal, though.

I think an important question is "How do we foster an environment in which people voluntarily pool resources, while government involvement remains nominal?"

[JemyM]

caltrop69; when you say "how do we foster" you are already building involuntary structures within a collective. How do you FORCE every new child to believe in the principles of freedom? Tax founded public school?

In nations like Sweden, the "government" is almost distinguishable from the people and Sweden barely have an army. Does that mean that the Swedish population are the government, or does that mean Sweden have no government?

[caltrop69]

I am building nothing. The question was a hypothetical response, based on your initial statement. I accepted your premise. Now explain how it works.

I've seen plenty of Swedish complaints about their government. Many right here on Youtube. Apparently, the law that "allows" freedom of speech in Sweden is the size of the Bible.

Are you suggesting that they don't enforce these laws? There's plenty of discontent in Sweden. You just don't see it, because nay-sayers are tossed in jail.

[JemyM]

Freedom of speech is 1/4 of the Swedish constitution. It's extremely difficult to edit, even for an elected government. I don't know any nation in the world that have "anything goes" the way we do, but the law is of course limited when it comes to open incitement to violence, direct threats, fraud etc.

[caltrop69]

In the United States, the government is directly forbidden from passing laws in regards to speech and religion.

Of course, there's been some erosion of the limitation over the years, but most of the erosion is at the local level, or regarding public airwaves which, arguably, can't really be "owned" in the same way land or property can be.

[JemyM]

I think there's a difference to keep in mind at all times when comparing US and Europe. United States was founded, the European countries evolved. The difference plays a rule in how the constitution works and in the power relation between government and the people.

Our constitution changes over time, when the people agree. The government is essentially the "servants who work in the people's mansion". There's a quote by Ken McLeod that describe this mentality.

[caltrop69]

The United States was founded by people who successfully escaped oppression by a tyrannical government that did not represent their interests.

As such, we've got a culture of distrust for government, here.

[JemyM]

K.M; "Hey, this is Europe. We took it from nobody; we won it from the bare soil that the ice left. The bones of our ancestors, and the stones of their works, are everywhere. Our liberties were won in wars and revolutions so terrible that we do not fear our governors: they fear us. Our children giggle and eat ice-cream in the palaces of past rulers. We snap our fingers at kings. We laugh at popes. When we have built up tyrants, we have brought them down. And we have nuclear *fucking* weapons."

[caltrop69]

There isn't a human being on the planet whose ancestors aren't guilty of some sort of crime against another human. In that, I think we've all come a long way.

The important thing, to me, however, is the freedom of the individual. Group mentality frightens me, as it can be blamed for just about every crime in the past.

Never underestimate the danger of large groups of people who agree.

[JemyM]

I am an university student, aiming at doing research on tribalism (the behavior you speak about).

I think education is of key importance as it increases awareness. Educated are less scared for the unknown and harder to manipulate, without being ignorant.

But behavior, needs and emotions is also important. We need enough satisfaction to not form tribes for protection/rebellion/crime, enough freedom to keep personal control and opportunity for self-actualization through personal achievements.

[GuiMarquito]

thank you

[JemyM]

Sweden is a highly secular nation, instead of orgnizing ourselves in churches we tend to organize ourselves in political parties. As a such we are very much into politics. That also mean we have a lot of fringe movements who often tend to be poorly educated outcasts. They are generally blocked due to open incitement to violence, direct threats, fraud etc. The irony is that the groups who complain that they lack FoS would gladly stop Freedom of Speech for their own opponents if they could.

[caltrop69]

I certainly wouldn't mind a nation being secular. I, myself, have as many religious beliefs, now, as I did before I was born...None.

However, for you to discard the videos I've seen by your countrymen, out of hand, as uneducated, seems a bit naive. They seemed quite thoughtful, to me.

Here in the United States, it's almost a matter of pride that we allow people to say things that others may find shocking or disgusting. We point to the peaceful coexistence with these people as an achievement.

[JemyM]

When I say uneducated, I do so with a bias. I am an active skeptic, studying pseudoscience and radical groups is an interest of mine. That means I tend to see the worst of the worst.

[LuxGeomatrix]

As I Understand, Voting for your representatives is not only a right, but also a duty & the exercise of democracy, yet in the US U don't have direct influence on whoever U vote, but U have this "electoral school system" thru which a certain number of points are given to each state of the union thus it is a clear evidence of collectivism. shouldn't people have the right to have their vote counted in favor of whoever they've voted for. in this logic G.W. Bush would have never made it to presidency

[Clyaton]

At the same time, we do elect by our vote the senate and house, which select the electoral college. There are a few cons, but I agree for the most part it's not democracy, but we've always been a 'republic' they say! Anywayz, this would NOT work if we narrowed down parties to one candidate each. But I don't think it should work that way currently anywayz. Voter fraud would be a worry as a con. If we weren't forced to nominate under our party one person, the electoral college could be scrapped

[leonski35]

you are not a person,you have a person,claim back your right's,avoid contracting,submitting,registe­ring and applying and become a fee man/woman

[leonski35]

i read it as un a' lien' able,emphasis on the lien!

[WiseFlow28]

Awesome video!

[MadSmokerBBQ]

noisy music. maybe its my headphones, but sure is annoying and overdone.

[mizusajt]

seems biased, but is still a great video

[PeacefulKancer]

How is it biased?

[beingjohngalt1]

The idea that rights are 'earned on the battlefield' flies in the face of the entire point of this video series. That makes Rights a subjective article, and kills the idea of rights as 'unalienable'. It is a collectivist point of view, holding the idea that an individualist who may be stuck in a collectivist society would not have rights as we know them. Instead, I would argue he does have the same rights, but that society infringes on his rights. Ed Griffing is WRONG on this one point.

[jasonnm72]

I agree with you. I think rights are intrinsic, but I believe he is correct in recognizing that the exercising of rights go hand in hand with power. He shouldn't have said that rights are earned on the battlefield. Instead, he should have said that if you decline to fight on the battlefield, you are not defending and therefore are abdicating your freedom to exercise your natural born rights.

[lucidworld]

There is no such thing as intrinsic or unalienable rights. Your "rights", or what you are allowed by consensus are something that is secured and maintained by YOU, or on your behalf by others. Most people rely on the State for enforcement of their "rights", and the State achieves this through the threat/use of force. That is the essential function of the State, to create/maintain a certain structure of society through the use of force.

You don't have any rights, you have PRIVILEGES...

[jasonnm72]

Do you believe that rights exist at all? If you believe that rights do exist in some form, define them, and let me know who owns them? I would consider it a privilege to read your answer.

[lucidworld]

There are no intrinsic or unalienable rights. There is no grand authoritarian that has ingrained the fabric of the universe with a set of moral rules and regulations. "Rights" are a subjective construct created by the human mind. Ownership and rights are basically the same thing, you "own" your "rights" insofar as you can secure and maintain them. Ownership is maintained through consensus, you "own" your property because the individuals around you agree that you own it.

[jasonnm72]

Do you not feel that YOU have rights? Wouldn't you experience a sense of violation if someone took something you earned, or if the state threw you in a cell with no explanation? I realize that feelings and senses are subjective. Still, subjective perceptions are necessary indicators of objective reality. I first knew I had rights because I "felt it".

[lucidworld]

I don't believe in any "rights" outside of what I and others secure for ourselves. There is no objective reality "outside" of you, experience is entirely subjective. "Objectivity" is a consensus that things are thus and so, it is the foundation of communication, a tool of the linear mind. There is no objectivity "out there", you are an organism/environment, "you" and the universe are the same process. Individuality as a state of being grows from your conscious mind, and it is yours to maintain.

[jasonnm72]

So you are saying that the only reality is subjective reality, so only your personal experience is relevant. A tree can't fall in the woods because it doesn't exist if its not part of your experience. If thats the case then all behavior is completely arbitrary, and you can treat people as you want because, after all, they're not real. I have that same philosophy when interacting with characters in a video game.

[lucidworld]

Everything that we perceive is from our personal subjective experience. There is no universal objectivity. You are not a flesh encapsulated ego driving your body around with your mind in an an objective world of separate people, places, and things. It is your mind that interprets reality and makes classifications and distinctions, a sort of map of the territory which you use for points of reference. But the map is NOT the territory, our interpretation of the universe is not the universe. cont...

[lucidworld]

Reality is infinite and indescribable, experience and perception grow from the observer, and the observer is the observed. The root of freedom is to let people be, to live and let live as long as you are left in peace. I'm not saying that my subjective reality is the ultimate reality that everyone must follow, nor am I saying that reality is objective and that everyone must agree with what a programmed majority thinks is objective. Both extremes are oppressive and totalitarian.

[putittogether]

lucidworld wrote: "Your "rights", or what you are allowed by consensus"

You clearly don't know what the f%^k you are talking about when it come to the origin of your inalienable rights, under the formation of the U.S. Constitution.

[DoomHippie]

Hokay,

So if the consensus told you, "You have no right living in your house, get out and leave all your possessions behind," you would be fine with that?

What if the All-Knowing Consensus thought enslaving you for no reason but your skin color was a good idea?

What if the Great and Mighty Consensus says that Mob Rule and Vigilante Justice are your rights?

What if the consensus says you have no rights?

Would you agree?

[lucidworld]

DoomHippie, You misunderstand me. No, I am not fine with that, nor do I see consensus as an "all-knowing" grand authority. That is collectivism, which I oppose with all my being. It is the rule of the mob and the oppression of individuality, a kind of Borg collective. I believe all "rights" begin with the individual. If an individual doesn't have rights, then the "group" doesn't either. Individuals secure rights through force (violence) and/or consensus (a civil agreement or contract). Cont...

[lucidworld]

...If you are alone on an island, then the concept of "rights" has no relevance. It is only relevant when applied to relations between individuals. If there are three of us on an island, then we all must reach a civil agreement about our personal and property rights. If two of us decide to claim the entire shady side of the island with the coconut grove and fresh water and demand the one remains in the barren side with the rocks and sand, then the individual must fight for his "right" to life.

[putittogether]

lucidworld: removed his comment because he made my point for me by mistake when arguing that I was wrong. LMFAO

[lucidworld]

Umm, no. I wanted to edit a typo, but since youtube doesn't have an edit comment function, I deleted my comment instead and copy/paste/edited it.

Anyways, your comment shows that you don't really have a point. If you would like to make an actual argument, then please explain to us where the authority behind the U.S. Constitution comes from. What it the source of its authority?

[kenpoka65]

uhhh puttittogether, it's Unalienable.

[putittogether]

kenpoka65 - "uhhh puttittogether, it's Unalienable."

No libtard, it is not "Unalienable". Read the f**king U..S. Constitution.

[mountain19]

what is royalty? the most barbaric tribe? dangerous times which many are not ready to deal with nor would they know how which this secret gov. is aware of and more than ready for as they read the comments on these sites. pitiful,

[OldCottage2]

I disagree with the wording that "rights are won on the battlefield." I think that while rights must be protected and defended through force of arms, human rights are innate to each individual. By circumstance they may be prevented by force from exercising their rights.

[NItEMArE129]

what happens when those rights are subjugated by another force? If they must be defended through the force of arms, then they are still earned on the battlefield in the sense that, to have those rights, you must be able to defend them.

[OldCottage2]

There's a difference between having rights and having the power to express them. A slave still has natural rights. He just has been rendered powerless to express them. The rights themselves can't be removed. That's what the term "inalienable rights" means.

[NItEMArE129]

Good point. I would definitely agree with you there. I guess what they meant in the video was the right to express rather than to have the rights. But since they're inalienable, it's easier to just refer to the rights instead of ability to express and exercise those rights.

[beingjohngalt1]

Unfortunately, Mr Griffin's meaning did encompass your first response, NltMArE129. This is the one area of Mr Griffins understanding whith which I wholly disagree. Ayn Rand's understanding of the source of rights is spot-on, understanding that rights are 'unalienable'. Not 'in'alienable, as some mistakenly say. The idea is that no one can put a 'lien' on anyone's rights, including the individual to which they belong... Nor can your rights be sold to another.

[fornello123]

"Rights are based on power" - the great truth that many people want to ignore

[quuaa1]

Yeah, that is true, although most people now don't want to deal with that.

[Jimraynor45]

I have a question about the origin of rights. The video said, rights come from the battlefied, and that the next generation inherits their rights from the previous generation as a gift. Does that mean, that our parents are the origin of our rights? If so, does that mean our parents can give or take away our rights whenever they choose? Do parents own their children? If a child is the property of their parent, does that mean its okay to murder their children whenever they please? I would to know.

[mountain19]

under god/christian principals which we as a country are based on do not have the right to kill you or anyone by lay in wait only in a defense my we kill. the gov. tricked parents into signing B cert. which has a bonding # which puts all of us on the world stock market as comodity of the gov..which is what owns you by way of birth cert. signed. parents are to protect the rights others died for in rockefeller and rothschild's profiteering wars which they start to also keep the populus culled down

[magzero41]

i agree with everything except for the god/christian principals, yes most people think our country was based on the chrisian god but infact our ancesters we fed up with religious wars and based our country off of Deism, which is the idea of natures god, he created us and left, thus mans law rules all, god was used to identify a placement of humans. thats all

[healingwave]

This is deep, I think I will have to sleep on it:). Great Job!

[Nexus974]

OUTSTANDING!!!!!

[nofunclub]

the debris example is not the best example.

it supports the survival of the strongest or most desperate.

and that IS tyranny.

[donkeyfly69]

i love love this movie!

[Mattes50A05]

DvD when is this coming out and where can I get it?

[vudumojo]

Perfect job.

Thank you sir...

[carcabe]

I greatly appreciate the work you do. Thanks.

[mypracticespace]

Long time subscriber, first time critic. I love what you've done. I couldn't hear myself think over the music in the first set, and yet I watched them all and had wished there were more. Cheers!