What are people entitled to?

all of the above plus privacy.
 
To this I would add the right to privacy (though one could admittedly argue it is included under Amendment 9), and property (implied by amendments 4 and again 9, but never explicitly stated, IIRC).

But yes, the USA's body of rights is pretty good overall.*

* With the exception of the death penalty, which I believe should be outlawed, but that is controversial enough that if I had argued that along with the other ones above, it would obfuscate the point of the post.

The death penalty is covered in point #1.

The Bill of Rights actually restricts this particular right, interestingly (or not) enough.
 
Fair treatment. That means we have to live by rules (values, virtues, etc.) we can reasonably agree on. Which in turn means that if I propose a rule that benefits me, it had better have a basis that also benefits other people. And similarly if you propose something that benefits you.

What this means for any particular society is complex, and depends on historical and cultural factors. There are many possible fair Constitutions - but not just anything will do. In practice, we can tell when someone is trying to pull one over on the rest of us and stack things in their favor.

As for groups - they are made of people. We need to listen to groups insofar as that is a/the way to listen to people.
 
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights pretty much sums it up.
 
"The pursuit of happiness" part makes no sense to me; like someone already said: "What does that even mean?". It is not nearly specific enough.
I'd say the American founding fathers got it right the first time, when the said that government's job is to protect "Life, Liberty and Property". I think that also sums up what people are entitled to: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of property"
 
The right to property assumes a capitalist economic system, an assumption that should have no role in inalienable rights.

If people live in a commune, monastery, or similar, they have no personal property, but that doesn't make them oppressed or anything like that. There is nothing wrong with this kind of socioeconomic system.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with the "Satan" missile over there. :)
monasteries dont work?
Don't you know? The monks just end up playing tennis or something. :rolleyes:
 
Except that it never works.

monasteries dont work?
Indeed.

Communes have worked on a small scale, with religious connections. Also, where they haven't worked, a major cause is the fact that capitalism has thrived nearby and has decreased interest. Capitalism is flashy, so it dissuades alternatives.

But this is besides the point that it is not fundamentally wrong to live in and perpetuate a property free society. Property is not an inalienable right. It's a capitalist right. It only applies under the assumption that capitalism is desirable.
 
Turkey, turkey and more turkey! MMmmm... BBQsauce
 
while i understand the authoritarian form of communism being your enemy on this basis, what if a society decides they want to adopt the economic aspects?
Does every single person in that society agree with that goal?
 
The key is that in the commune, or monastery, or what have you, the people have basically waived their right to personal property. They still have it, they just aren't using it. And if they are happy, more power to them.
 
Top Bottom