[jbovlaste] Re: natural and human rights

How about this:

The dictionary definition for "right" is:

"a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please."

So the way I see it - A right is a liberty then is given to you by a specific "rule" (I first wanted to use {flalu} (law) but since it doesn't have to be a legal rule, I chose {javni} which is a more general class than {flalu}).

jvazi'e: x1 has the right to do x2 by power of rule x3 in community/system x4

from:

ko'a jvazi'e ko'e ko'i ko'o .ijo ko'a zifre ko'e tu'a lo javni be ko'e bei ko'o

Therefore, a "right" would be a {lo se jvazi'e}

BTW: what do you think of {jinzi} for inalienable.

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:20 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:

On 9 December 2010 14:22, A. PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com> wrote:

>>
>>1) mujyselpo'e
>>
>>p2 is a natural/inalienable right possessed by p1
>>
>>from:
>>p2 se ponse p1 lo munje

>2) remselpo'e
> p2 is a human right possessed by p1
>
>from:p2 se ponse p1 lo remna
>
>totus
>

In my opinion, a right is not so much a possessed thing as a condition for doing

something.

What do people usually mean by "I have the right to ..."? It's a claim that they

are conditioned with a freedom to do/be a certain thing. "have" is an idiomatic
_expression_. So, how about "terzi'e" (te zifre)?

------------- The obvious advantage of using {terzi'e} is that it separates the
right

to 'do something" from the 'something' itself. However, I still don't understand

it being a 'condition'. I've looked through definitions of 'condition' and I
don't see

one that fits. What is the definition of 'condition' that you see fits both
your

understanding of 'right' and that contained in the definition of
{zifre}?

zifre3 (condition) is that which makes zifre2 (event/state) possible for zifre1. A right is that which makes an event/state possible for someone. A right -- a condition -- may be inalienable (natural) or statutory (legal). For instance, the condition for moral rights is typically inalienable, and the condition for civil rights is typically statutory. "A natural right" means an inalienable condition (zifre3) for someone (zifre1) to do/be something (zifre2).

"I have the natural right to life" (cf. UDHR art.3) can be expressed quite simply as

mi zifre lo nu jmive kei lo rarna

"life" (lo selzi'e) is that to which "the natural right" (lo rarterzi'e) is possessed by "I" (lo zifre). Once again, "have" seems to be an idiomatic _expression_ of "be conditioned", perhaps due to the person-centric nature of legal discourses (i.e. the active voice is preferred to the passive voice for practicallity, exceptions being "one is entitled to ..." etc.).

For (1), I would use "rar" (rarna) instead of "muj". "munje" does not
necessarily encompass the entire cosmos independent of any arbitrary framework;
it can be of a specific domain (x2) and defined by a specific rule (x3), which
again contrasts with a pan-domain pan-rule natural right.

-------------------- But I think that the default meaning of {lo munje} is
generally

understood to be our cosmos. Do we really need to worry about natural
rights in any other cosmos?

The trouble with {rarna} is that the meaning
of 'natural' seems to be close to 'spontaneous' or 'instinctive' - not really
relevant

{lo munje} is not necessarily physical. It can be any "complete and ordered entirety", including metaphysical ones such as "the universe of discourse":

x1 is a universe/cosmos [complete and ordered entirety] of domain/sphere x2 defined by rules x3

The current controversial anti-gay campaign by Ugandan MP David Bahati stems from his belief that freedom of sexual orientation applies to only specific countries (i.e. specific universes of human society), rejecting the international consensus that it's a nation-independent natural right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYTziDqTWD4
In other words, he believes that the right to be homosexual (munje2) is specific to certain universes (munje1) defined by non-Ugandan (or non-biblical, as he claims) rules (munje3).

Sexual orientation is scientifically known to be spontaneous rather than of an arbitrary decision. One is inherently homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual etc. not because one has decided so but because one is just instinctively so. And this is a very important basis of freedom of sexual orientation being a *natural* right. Spontaneity actually has a lot to do with non-statutory rights. Bahati (like any other anti-gay Evangelicals) argues that homosexuality is not natural, to which scientists would respond that it is natural and therefore the gay right too can be considered based on natural conditions.

So, it's quite crucial that we understand the contrast between {rarna} and {munje} in this regard, the former being more accurate in denoting the underlying principles of inalienable rights.