Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[Oddball]

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.

Nonsense...But then again, you specialize in that.

 

[JBeukema]

That's your rebuttal?

 

[Oddball]

What's the point?

Your philosophical musings read like a Critique of Pure Fifth Columnist Dreck.

 

[The T]

Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

No. A True Democracy is nothing more than Mob Rule...and what is Mob rule but a taste of what we have in two of the three branches of government now?

I would describe the present 'Regime' as a Thugocracy...that doesn't care of the people or their views.

 

[boedicca]

I never said the Constitution grants rights


America is a democracy

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

Wrong. The U.S. is a federalized constitutional republic.

 

[boedicca]

Try reading this instead of Rousseau:

With special attention to the concept "Tyranny of the Majority".

Tocqueville speculates on the future of democracy in the United States, discussing possible threats to democracy and possible dangers of democracy. These include his belief that democracy has a tendency to degenerate into "soft despotism" as well as the risk of developing a tyranny of the majority.

We are at this point with our current political system.

 

[Oddball]

Referring to Rousseau told me everything I needed to know.

 

[boedicca]

Well, yes....it's like an Obamunist waving around "Rules for Racials" to justify his behavior.

 

[The T]

I never said the Constitution grants rights


America is a democracy

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

Wrong. The U.S. is a federalized constitutional republic.

How oft must this be repeated? So much for Gubmint edumication eh?

 

[The T]

Try reading this instead of Rousseau:

With special attention to the concept "Tyranny of the Majority".

Tocqueville speculates on the future of democracy in the United States, discussing possible threats to democracy and possible dangers of democracy. These include his belief that democracy has a tendency to degenerate into "soft despotism" as well as the risk of developing a tyranny of the majority.

We are at this point with our current political system.

Yep. And that could well be because the noses of the politic in power's noses weren't kept to the grindstone of The Constitution...

In other words? *WE* let them get away with it.

 

[mattskramer]

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?

Natural Rights is a fallacy. It is a made up notion. If they come from anywhere, rights come from imagination.

 

[The T]

Okay. then they are privileges.

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

Natural Rights is a fallacy. It is a made up notion. If they come from anywhere, rights come from imagination.

God doesn't exist? People don't have a right to live their lives as they see fit without intrusion from others? People cannot practice Liberty on their terms whle not infringing on the Liberty of others?

Explain your stance. It seems to me that you are NO friend to the Founders or their precept...and that is one Of GOD...where ALL rights are derived.

Would it be SAFE to assume that you are a 'Liberty Denier'?

 

[Foxfyre]

In a nutshell, the Founders saw 'unalienable' or 'natural' rights as whatever requires no contribution from any other person other than his/her non interference. Whatever requires contribution from another is no longer a 'natural' right but a privilege.

They conceived a government that would recognize and protect the concept of unalienable rights and saw the primary purpose of government as the protector of those rights. And recognizing that governments can and do presume to usurp the unalienable rights of the people, they included this clause in the Declaration of Independence:

"That, whenever government becomes destructive to these ends [protecting our unalienable Rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and to institute new Government..."

The Founders knew what freedom truly is, and they intended a social contract that would make that the sum total of all that government should be.

 

[Oddball]

Okay. then they are privileges.

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

Natural Rights is a fallacy. It is a made up notion. If they come from anywhere, rights come from imagination.

If anything takes imagination, it's this unquantifiable "society" thingy you've been talking about.

 

[Oddball]

Yep. And that could well be because the noses of the politic in power's noses weren't kept to the grindstone of The Constitution...

In other words? *WE* let them get away with it.

They're more interested in that "case law" thing...IOW, what they can get away with.

 

[boedicca]

Which does explain why the U.S. has the highest ratio of lawyers in the world.

 

[JBeukema]

I never said the Constitution grants rights


America is a democracy

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

Wrong. The U.S. is a federalized constitutional republic.

America is a democracy by definition.

The Republic is a representative democracy.

Hence democratic elections.

How many times do you have to be told this? it's not that complicated.

 

[JBeukema]

God doesn't exist?

You've evidence that your deity exists? Publish it in Science and get back after your experiments and conclusions have bee reviewed.

Thanks for proving that the entire concept is a theological one based in religion.

 

[boedicca]

I don't need to be told anything about the U.S. form of government by you.

You spout off definitions you don't understand.

 

[Oddball]

God doesn't exist?

You've evidence that your deity exists? Publish it in Science and get back after your experiments and conclusions have bee reviewed.

Thanks for proving that the entire concept is a theological one based in religion.

Like it or not (and you obviously don't), the American republic is based upon a deist view of the world.

Nonetheless, the idea that there are natural rights (i.e. the right of self-preservation) spring from an overall more or less civilized notion of freedom from aggression, which itself needs no deity.

Your too-clever-by-half routine is quickly moving from droll in its ignorance to rather dreary.