Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[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.

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?

If you were alone, then you would decide for yourself, or based on whatever philosophy or religious book that you hold, what is right and wrong. If another person came along then one of several things might happen based on your values and his values. You might kill him or he might kill you. One of you might enslave the other. Is cannibalism a natural right? On the other hand, perhaps you and he each manage to communicate and reach some mutual understanding. Anyway, nothing naturally makes you his master nor makes him your master. It depends on a roll of the dice.

 

[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.

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.

Okay. then they are privileges.

 

[JBeukema]

Anarchy is a much different state because the mobs would slowly remove the individual freedom of someone else.

There can be no mob in an anarchist state. As soon as the mob forms, their collective decision-making becomes the mob's governence as a small society. If there is one leader among them, it is a monarchy, if several men lead them it is an oligarchy, and if is merely the will of the masses within the mob it is unbridled democracy. When the mob interacts with another person or group, they and the 'other(s)' constitute a larger society of interacting persons and the dynamics of their interacting and the making of decisions is once again worked out.

In most 'mobs' there is some non-binding democratic understanding within the mob and the mob attempts to act in a totalitarian manner against other classes or groups. For instance, the actions of a lynch mob might be determined by mass sentiment (democracy) or the decisions of a leader (monarchy_ or leaders (oligarchy). When the black man is taken into consideration we see that he has no protection in this system, be it an unbridled democracy, an oligarchy, or a monarchy. He is of a class with no rights within the society.

Human beings in anarchy

True anarchy can only exist when one person exists. Once two people begin to interact, the 'rules' and dynamics of their coexistence are determined,be it in a formal or an informal manner.

 

[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.

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

That's right, when you can't discuss the matter intelligently- just invoke Hitler.

 

[JBeukema]

They knew that not having freedom was unnatural. How come you don't know this?

Are you associating that which is natural with that which is good?

 

[ihopehefails]

Anarchy is a much different state because the mobs would slowly remove the individual freedom of someone else.

There can be no mob in an anarchist state. As soon as the mob forms, their collective decision-making becomes the mob's governence as a small society. If there is one leader among them, it is a monarchy, if several men lead them it is an oligarchy, and if is merely the will of the masses within the mob it is unbridled democracy. When the mob interacts with another person or group, they and the 'other(s)' constitute a larger society of interacting persons and the dynamics of their interacting and the making of decisions is once again worked out.

In most 'mobs' there is some non-binding democratic understanding within the mob and the mob attempts to act in a totalitarian manner against other classes or groups. For instance, the actions of a lynch mob might be determined by mass sentiment (democracy) or the decisions of a leader (monarchy_ or leaders (oligarchy). When the black man is taken into consideration we see that he has no protection in this system, be it an unbridled democracy, an oligarchy, or a monarchy. He is of a class with no rights within the society.

Human beings in anarchy

True anarchy can only exist when one person exists. Once two people begin to interact, the 'rules' and dynamics of their coexistence are determined,be it in a formal or an informal manner.

Thank you for showing that democracy is nothing more than mob rule.

Anyways, how can any of these rules that they agree to live by actually interfere with what someone's inalienable rights? I thought you were a liberal so shouldn't a liberal be about maximizing freedom so how does watering down someone's freedom in some collective agreement maximize freedom? What if we agreed that we had no freedoms whatsoever? I know that is the extreme but that is where your line of thinking will take people because if we can agree that someone doesn't have any rights then we can agree to take away even more rights until no one has any.

What if one person didn't agree to whatever agreement exist? Is the other person going to beat the hell out him until he complies? Where do you get this compulsion to mandate that everyone agrees?

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

That's right, when you can't discuss the matter intelligently- just invoke Hitler.

I think I made a good point because the jews obviosley thought they had an inalienable right to live but a majority of the NAZIs in power thought otherwise. Clearly the state was not interested in protecting those rights. It then allowed the germans to take everything they had. See what happens when the state doesn't protect the rights of the individual against society?

 

[ihopehefails]

They knew that not having freedom was unnatural. How come you don't know this?

Are you associating that which is natural with that which is good?

Am I? I didn't argue it was right or wrong that someone should live in freedom but knew it was a part of their rights to do so (it was morally neatral). It was not a moral argument whatsoever but an argument based on the fact they knew they had rights from the beginning despite the fact no one else told them they had any.

If I was attempting to make a moral argument I would have said that the bible says slavery is wrong therefore shouldn't be done. I was saying that slavery violates some innate part of a person that knows that they are free and the fact that slaves knew that slavery sucked showed that they saw themselves in an unnatural state.

 

[ihopehefails]

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?

If you were alone, then you would decide for yourself, or based on whatever philosophy or religious book that you hold, what is right and wrong. If another person came along then one of several things might happen based on your values and his values. You might kill him or he might kill you. One of you might enslave the other. Is cannibalism a natural right? On the other hand, perhaps you and he each manage to communicate and reach some mutual understanding. Anyway, nothing naturally makes you his master nor makes him your master. It depends on a roll of the dice.

Are you suggesting that a person's self-chosen belief such as their holy book gets watered down by their agreement? Why should anything anyone believes become subject to someone else? Can't you imagine two people not agreeing and not interfering with their mutual decisions about what they are going to do?

 

[Oddball]

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.

Okay. then they are privileges.

So, since we've established that the mob is the source of privileges, where do rights come from?

 

[Oddball]

If you were alone, then you would decide for yourself, or based on whatever philosophy or religious book that you hold, what is right and wrong. If another person came along then one of several things might happen based on your values and his values. You might kill him or he might kill you. One of you might enslave the other. Is cannibalism a natural right? On the other hand, perhaps you and he each manage to communicate and reach some mutual understanding. Anyway, nothing naturally makes you his master nor makes him your master. It depends on a roll of the dice.

The value of self-determination is universal....No man is inherently the master of another, roll of the dice or not.

Rights, by their *ahem* nature, neither need outside imposition nor impose upon the rights of another.

 

[Big Black Dog]

When I get tired of all the bullshit here in America, I'm going to proclaim myself King. When that happens, there will be peace and harmony throughout the land. Everyone will prosper. There will be no hunger. No homeless. No worries. Everyone will also be a Washington Redskins football fan and a Philadelphia Philles baseball fan.

 

[hortysir]

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?

Where does the concept of "unremoveable" rights come from?
Are you referring to the constitution's mention of inalienable rights?
The only "inalienable" rights mentioned are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
The Bill of Rights is a list of granted rights that can be forfeited or taken away. Nowhere are they referred to as "unremoveable".

Now, as far as being compatible with a democracy??
How do you invoke the constitution and then call us a democracy?
Democracy is mob-rule.
Constitutional Republic has the majority of the representatives decide law.
It is possible, when a representative doesn't act in accordance with their constituents, that the majority of representatives can pass a law that the majority of Americans do not support. Therefore proving that we are not a democracy.

 

[editec]

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...

Inalienable -incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another

Now how confused are you?

If a right was INALIENABLE, no government COULD take it away from you.

Hell, Ihope, any child with a gun can take away every RIGHT you have.

So where's your inalienable right?

There is NO such thing.

You can tell yourselve it exists, but I defy you to show me one that I couldn't deny you if I choose to do so.

 

[Oddball]

Wrong...The child with the gun merely transgresses your rights, through an act of aggression...They aren't taken away.

There's a difference.

 

[JBeukema]

Thank you for showing that democracy is nothing more than mob rule.

Unbridled democracy is mob rule. That's why thee FF settled on a representative democracy with constitutional limits on the powers of the government.

Anyways, how can any of these rules that they agree to live by actually interfere with what someone's inalienable rights?

Demonstrate that 'inalienable rights' exist. They are noting more than beautiful, even noble- but baseless rhetoric.

I thought you were a liberal

I've said numerous times that I'm not a Liberal. Bourgeois Liberalism fails to protect the liberties of the common man and serves only those who seek to exploit and oppress him.

I can be called, with a fair degree of accuracy, a moderate Social Democrat.

Social democracy is a political ideology of the centre-left on the classic political spectrum...committed [to opposing] Stalinist communism...Social democracy as such has arisen as a distinct ideology from democratic socialism.

Social democracy promotes the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers' rights.[3] Social democracy rejects the Marxian principle of dictatorship of the proletariat, claiming that gradualist democratic reforms will improve the rights of the working class.[4]
The goal of social democracy is to complement capitalism through parliamentary and democratic processes in order to achieve a mixed economy, controlled by a representative government. This includes financial regulation, and various state sponsored programs to ameliorate and remove the inequities and injustices inflicted by the market system. Social democrats do not aim to replace the fundamental aspects of capitalism; private-ownership of the means of production, the system of wage-labor and commodity production; instead social democrats advocate Third way positions and the social market economy. The term itself is also used to refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate.[5]

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

• A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
• An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
• Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.
• Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
• A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
• A secular and a socially progressive policy.
• Immigration and multiculturalism.
• Youth rights and lowering the voting age.
• Fair trade over free trade.
• A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
• Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so shouldn't a liberal be about maximizing freedom

Classical/Bourgeois Liberals pay lipservice to 'freedom' yet stand only for the freedom to exploit whomever you can.

so how does watering down someone's freedom in some collective agreement maximize freedom?

We restrict your freedom to fire a weapon when and where you wish in order to protect others. We restrict your right to travel to protect my right to own my own home- you may not travel through it without my permission. To protect life, liberty, and property, certain limits must be placed upon liberty.

What if we agreed that we had no freedoms whatsoever?

How can such a scenario possibly exist? Not even the liberty to breathe? Who in their right mind would agree to any such thing? (outside of temporarily during certain sexual practices)

I know that is the extreme but that is where your line of thinking will take people because if we can agree that someone doesn't have any rights then we can agree to take away even more rights until no one has any.

Until noone has any? The People would never form such a society where they all agreed to not even breathe.

What if one person didn't agree to whatever agreement exist?

They become an outlaw, a 1%er, a survivalist on a mountaintop, a street corner preacher, or a social pariah, usually. Sometimes they convince others to join them and they become revolutionaries.

Is the other person going to beat the hell out him until he complies?

Historically, that does tend to happen.

Where do you get this compulsion to mandate that everyone agrees?

Who said everyone agrees on everything? If that were the case there'd really be no need for government in the first place.

 

[JBeukema]

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

That's right, when you can't discuss the matter intelligently- just invoke Hitler.

I think I made a good point because the jews obviosley thought they had an inalienable right to live but a majority of the NAZIs in power thought otherwise. Clearly the state was not interested in protecting those rights. It then allowed the germans to take everything they had. See what happens when the state doesn't protect the rights of the individual against society?

So you're arguing that something must exist because you don't like reality?

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Okay. then they are privileges.

So, since we've established that the mob is the source of privileges, where do rights come from?

The same.


In practice, all rights are Positive Rights.

 

[JBeukema]

When I get tired of all the bullshit here in America, I'm going to proclaim myself King.

Good luck with that. I'll ready the Guillotine.

 

[JBeukema]

The Bill of Rights is a list of granted rights that can be forfeited or taken away. Nowhere are they referred to as "unremoveable".

It never says the rights are granted. The rights are assumed to exist, thus they 'shall not be infringed'. Also, your argument runs into a major hurdle in the Ninth Amendment.

Now, as far as being compatible with a democracy??

How do you invoke the constitution and then call us a democracy?
Democracy is mob-rule.

Not quite.

Not all democracy is unbridled direct democracy.

Constitutional Republic has the majority of the representatives decide law.

Chosen by democratic elections. The USA is a representative democracy.

It is possible, when a representative doesn't act in accordance with their constituents, that the majority of representatives can pass a law that the majority of Americans do not support. Therefore proving that we are not a democracy.

You really need to get a dictionary.