Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[ihopehefails]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

 

[dilloduck]

short answer-- no-

 

[JBeukema]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

They can't be voted on.

See:Bill of Rights

you fail

 

[ihopehefails]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

They can't be voted on.

See:Bill of Rights

you fail

Really? I only get five listed in the constitution. Everything else can be voted on like what I eat, where I work, how much money I can make, etc, etc, etc...

I don't know what world view you have but I sure the hell have a hell lot more freedom than the ones protected in the first amendment.

Since you are such a big fan of the bill of rights why don't we expand our protections by just saying that the federal government only has limited delegated powers listed in the constitution so that it can't vote away every natural freedom in existence. That is my bill of rights!

 

[JBeukema]

I don't know what world view you have but I sure the hell have a hell lot more freedom than the ones protected in the first amendment.

Did you read the rest of them? 2-10 are definitely worth the read.

And the Fed doesn't vote, you idiot.

 

[Oddball]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

They can't be voted on.

See:Bill of Rights

you fail

Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights give anyone any rights.

In a democracy, all "rights" are defined by the rule of the mob.

The fail is yours.

 

[EriktheRed]

So what's this anti-democracy kick the OP is on lately?

 

[Oddball]

Probably because so many prattling politicians and their media toadies go on and on and onadnonandon about how we're supposed to be living in a democracy.

Mob rule is for barbarians.

 

[JBeukema]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

They can't be voted on.

See:Bill of Rights

you fail

Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights give anyone any rights.

In a democracy, all "rights" are defined by the rule of the mob.

The fail is yours.

I never said the Constitution grants rights


America is a democracy

once again you prove you have no idea what you're talking about

 

[JBeukema]

Stupid people like to act like they're educated while they fail to realize that a representative democracy is, by definition, a democracy.

 

[JBeukema]

S: (n) democracy, republic, commonwealth (a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them)

 

[JBeukema]

The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."[44]

Remedial reading for idiots like Dude

 

[mattskramer]

“Natural Rights” is a fallacy. It is simply a human invention derived and modified throughout societal growth and tradition.

See Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oddball]

Wiki?...You can't be serious.

 

[JBeukema]

Wiki?...You can't be serious.

Attacking the source instead of the arguments?

Isn't there a term for that?

 

[JBeukema]

 

[mattskramer]

Wiki?...You can't be serious.

(Type a title for your page here)

Natural Rights Don't Exist

Happy now?

 

[Oddball]

Specious argument anyways.

If our rights to our lives and property aren't inherent to our being (i.e. natural), then it only follows that we only enjoy "rights" that some authority is willing to "allow" us.

Those aren't rights, they're privileges...There's a huge difference.

 

[JBeukema]

You're arguing that there are natural rights because you want there to be.

And you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[mattskramer]

Specious argument anyways.

If our rights to our lives and property aren't inherent to our being (i.e. natural), then it only follows that we only enjoy "rights" that some authority is willing to "allow" us.

Those aren't rights, they're privileges...There's a huge difference.

My argument is not specious. It is as real as the chair in which I sit. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a natural right – no matter what Thomas Jefferson said so eloquently. There are things that we (as individuals, societies, etc.), often based on general consensus or consent, consider to be rights.