Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[ihopehefails]

Did you actually pull out Rossieu?

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

You seem to be suggesting that all rights are derived from the authority of others. Well if I was born on an island with no one else around, would I have any freedom or would I just sit their waiting for person number two to come along to decide what I could do? If this person decided what I can and can't do would that not make him my master and not an equal? What made him so special that he has this power over me that I already do not possess for myself?

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

I agree with this because a privelage is my boss allowing me a 45 minute lunch break versus an 30 minute. I have to ask him for permission so he possess that right over me but after work I can decide how long I can take a break since that right belongs to me. I don't have to ask him, my friends, or my neighbors how long I should have to eat lunch outside of his control.

my wife is another story all together....

 

[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.

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.

Did you really say that?

Do you understand what the word "consent" implies?

If I need "general consensus or consent" from this mythical "society" then we're talking about privileges, not rights.

 

[JBeukema]

Did you actually pull out Rossieu?

Social contract is fact as anyone with a proper understanding of it realizes.

'Natural Rights' are nothing but lovely rhetoric based on nothing but one's desire for it to be true.

 

[JBeukema]

Did you actually pull out Rossieu?

No, I pulled out Rousseau

 

[JBeukema]

You seem to be suggesting that all rights are derived from the authority of others. Well if I was born on an island with no one else around, would I have any freedom or would I just sit their waiting for person number two to come along to decide what I could do?

It would be an anarchist state in which you had total liberty. You would have no need for such rhetoric as 'natural rights' to argue any law or philosophy.

If this person decided what I can and can't do would that not make him my master and not an equal?

When you two met, you would soon establish the system. You might debate what to do, forming some form of democracy, or one might dominate the other, forming some form of tyranny.

 

[JBeukema]

If I need "general consensus or consent" from this mythical "society" then we're talking about privileges, not rights.

Society consents to your existence. Every member consents to your existence by allowing you to exist and not killing you.

Society exists to your liberty by not imprisoning you.

Society consents to your actions by taking no action against you form them when they when the members of society are aware of them.

When you commit an act to which a person or the People as a whole do not consent (such as rape or robbery), society takes action against you.

 

[JBeukema]

The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society
-Pierre-Joseph Proudhon​

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not so worried about natural rights.

It is the individual's rights that concern me. Individual and natural rights can be argued to be the same but I won't pick that nit.

The thinking of the founders was that an individual had rights that were inherent in the mere act of existing. It doesn't matter if they used the term "endowed by their creator". The obvious meaning we that we, each of us individually, have rights that no government, ruler, or other individual can violate, or take away.

The one and only way to protect these rights is equal treatment under the law for all individuals.

We are losing our individual rights in favor of some collective good. You can see it every day even here. We have people arguing that it's OK for the government to force you to buy insurance; that it's just fine if the government tells you you can't eat salt or use certain cooking oils.

We have politicians in CA who want to put government controlled thermostats in homes. People who want to control your diet via taxes and the list goes on.

In a country where individual rights matter above all else (as ours was designed to be) not one of the above examples would even be considered as a means to an end.

It seems we are not the country we used to be. In our quest to become more like every other country with their collectivist social structure, we are losing what once made us great.

 

[editec]

Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

There are no "natural rights"

That's why democracy was invented.

To give us social rights.

 

[Toro]

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?

Right. For example, people vote in the death penalty, which clearly violates the inalienable right to life.

But of course, there is no such thing as "natural rights." All rights are confirmed by man. Natural rights are merely an ideal, albeit a noble one.

 

[editec]

Yup!

See? It's a SOCIAL CONTRACT.

Any rights you have you have in RELATION to other people.

Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about you or me or anything else.

It grants you nothing.

It has no mind.

It is a series of events.

Now if you believe in GOD, then perhaps GOD grants you rights, but he is doing damned all to see that you continue to have them.

The only thing between you and chains, is your society.

Anarchy is the complete lack of a social contract that gives you (or not) any human rights, folks.

What rights did SLAVES have before society changed the rules?

ZERO.

Where was THEIR god granted inalienable rights in that case?

I cannot understand how anyone can believe in the concept that you are born with any right to anything.

It makes ZERO sense.

 

[ihopehefails]

You seem to be suggesting that all rights are derived from the authority of others. Well if I was born on an island with no one else around, would I have any freedom or would I just sit their waiting for person number two to come along to decide what I could do?

It would be an anarchist state in which you had total liberty. You would have no need for such rhetoric as 'natural rights' to argue any law or philosophy.

If this person decided what I can and can't do would that not make him my master and not an equal?

When you two met, you would soon establish the system. You might debate what to do, forming some form of democracy, or one might dominate the other, forming some form of tyranny.

Anarchy is a much different state because the mobs would slowly remove the individual freedom of someone else. Human beings in anarchy would devour the freedom of someone else but that same instinct would be formalized in law in a democratic state which is why, even democracies, form laws that inhibit the freedom of other people.

Look at Iraq and the war for demecracy. They have it and now form laws that hinder the relligious minority from practicing their religion. It is no different than the dictatorship that they had before accept its the masses instead of one person removing the rights of someone else.

 

[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?

Right. For example, people vote in the death penalty, which clearly violates the inalienable right to life.

But of course, there is no such thing as "natural rights." All rights are confirmed by man. Natural rights are merely an ideal, albeit a noble one.

That because govt of any kind removes your inalieanable rights but the question is is that govt going to use its force to protect the natural state of the people or destroy it. Punishing someone for a crime is a violation of their natural rights but if that original crime was the violation of someone else rights then the state is using its force to maintiain the natural existence of the people.

Its a necessary evil that exist because man can't maintain his natural state of freedom by himself and should only be used to protect that state. If we were perfect, we would not need a government.

 

[ihopehefails]

If I need "general consensus or consent" from this mythical "society" then we're talking about privileges, not rights.

Society consents to your existence. Every member consents to your existence by allowing you to exist and not killing you.

Society exists to your liberty by not imprisoning you.

Society consents to your actions by taking no action against you form them when they when the members of society are aware of them.

When you commit an act to which a person or the People as a whole do not consent (such as rape or robbery), society takes action against you.

Thank you Adolf Hitler. I'm sure he did not think that Jews had an inalienable right to live as well.

 

[ihopehefails]

The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society
-Pierre-Joseph Proudhon​

How much power do you want to give to 'society' in your everyday actions? Should you have ask permission what cloths you wear in the morning? Should you do a headcount every morning in neighborhood about what you are to wear. Of course, 'society' hasn't decided to interfere with that choice yet but what if everyone but yourself decided to have a committee about what we are to wear. You thought this was stupid and were the only one that voted against it. You now have to wear what they tell you to wear despite the fact that you did not agree to it. What kind of 'social contract' is that where you have to participate and did not even agree to it?

 

[Oddball]

If I need "general consensus or consent" from this mythical "society" then we're talking about privileges, not rights.

Society consents to your existence. Every member consents to your existence by allowing you to exist and not killing you.

Society exists to your liberty by not imprisoning you.

Society consents to your actions by taking no action against you form them when they when the members of society are aware of them.

When you commit an act to which a person or the People as a whole do not consent (such as rape or robbery), society takes action against you.

Thanks, tovarich Stalin.

BTW, tovarich Stalin, where is this "society" thingy you keep talking about?....Can I borrow a bucket of this "society" from you today, if I promise to bring you back a barrel of it next week?

 

[ihopehefails]

Yup!

See? It's a SOCIAL CONTRACT.

Any rights you have you have in RELATION to other people.

Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about you or me or anything else.

It grants you nothing.

It has no mind.

It is a series of events.

Now if you believe in GOD, then perhaps GOD grants you rights, but he is doing damned all to see that you continue to have them.

The only thing between you and chains, is your society.

Anarchy is the complete lack of a social contract that gives you (or not) any human rights, folks.

What rights did SLAVES have before society changed the rules?

ZERO.

Where was THEIR god granted inalienable rights in that case?

I cannot understand how anyone can believe in the concept that you are born with any right to anything.

It makes ZERO sense.

The state failed to protect those rights. It was the 'social contract' that allowed them to be slaves since everyone else decided what their existence was going to be.

Its interesting that you bring up slavery because some slaves killed their offspring because they did not want them to live as slaves. Now, them being slaves, never being told they had rights by society, their owners, or anyone else knew that their existence sucked and loved their children so much that they could not bear to watch them be slaves. They knew that not having freedom was unnatural. How come you don't know this?

 

[Oddball]

Veerrrry interesting.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (28 June 1712 – 2 July 1778) was a major Genevois philosopher, writer, and composer of the 18th-century Enlightenment. His political philosophy influenced the French Revolution and the development of modern political and educational thought....Rousseau was the most popular of the philosophers among members of the Jacobin Club.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initially moderate, the club later became notorious for its implementation of the Reign of Terror. To this day, the terms Jacobin and Jacobinism are used as pejoratives for left-wing revolutionary politics.

Jacobin Club - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Always had you pegged for a closet commie, James....Nice to see you finally come out of the closet.