Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[JBeukema]

The State is nothing but myself and my neighbors and the rituals and formalities we establish in governing ourselves.

You can't show how I am biologically attached to the government in any way. It exist but so does walmart and I don't include myself as a member of that organization.

*facepalm*

So the State isn't a product of the People?

You don't support or believe in a government of, by, and for the People?

 

[JBeukema]

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.

'The idea spring form'? You can't even formulate a valid sentence, let alone demonstrate the existence of that which you insists must exist. Saying that people should be free from aggression does not prove any 'natural rights' exist. It is merely an assertion and an ideal. To demonstrate that 'natural rights' exist, you must demonstrate that these rights exist in and emerge from nature. Go ahead, argue that 'nature' grants an 'inalienable right' to live and I shall show you a lion eating a gazelle or a man dying from disease. You have nothing to support you claims and all you've done is repeat your assertions as if they proved themselves true by mere repetition.

The only 'rights' are the rights that Man agrees to recognize that his fellow man possesses. You cannot define what constitutes a 'natural right' or test for their existence. You cannot demonstrate what they are or from what they emerge. You cannot even enumerate them in any consistent manner, as past attempts by your ilk have resulted in contradictory lists and you merely pick and choose what 'rights' you personally wish to recognize.

Is there a right to life? Such a 'right' is meaningless without a 'right' to sustain one's existence and to the means to do so. Yet your kind rails against attempts to ensure the poor and infirm have food as 'wealth redistribution' or 'communism' while all the while acting as though you are the great defenders of the 'rights' you claim exist.

Typical Bourgeois Liberalism.

How about Human will?

Clarify.

It is the will of the persons involve that leads them to act to form a society and a system of governance- and to destroy one with which they disagree.

see: Consent of the Governed

 

[Oddball]

The only 'rights' are the rights that Man agrees to recognize that his fellow man possesses. You cannot define what constitutes a 'natural right' or test for their existence. You cannot demonstrate what they are or from what they emerge. You cannot even enumerate them in any consistent manner, as past attempts by your ilk have resulted in contradictory lists and you merely pick and choose what 'rights' you personally wish to recognize.

We've already had the semantics lesson and discovered that what you just described is known as "privileges" not rights.

Is there a right to life? Such a 'right' is meaningless without a 'right' to sustain one's existence and to the means to do so. Yet your kind rails against attempts to ensure the poor and infirm have food as 'wealth redistribution' or 'communism' while all the while acting as though you are the great defenders of the 'rights' you claim exist.

Typical Bourgeois Liberalism.

That's because Jacobin fifth columnists like you insist that it's your right to take what is mine, at gunpoint if necessary, to impose your values hierarchy upon everyone else, while claiming that you're protecting their rights.

Typical Bourgeois Stalinism.

 

[ihopehefails]

I knew it wouldn't it take very long for a 'liberal' whip out with marxist talk but that is besides the point.

Where did that happen? Is Fox a Liberal? Did he 'whip out with marxist talk'?

OK, For arguments sake I will accept your hypothesis that man has no inalienable rights whatsoever. That being true then what right does my neighbor have...

*facepalm*

When he does attempt to negate my freedom I would just remind him that he has no rights whatsoever which means he doesn't have any right to decide what I can do.

People do. They're called anarchists and they tend to be outcasts in civil society, where people recognize the needs to limit certain liberties to protect the most important.

The just society is founded and formed to protect the lives and liberties (freedoms) of those who form the society. Ours (the United States) is one that made just those stated goals and has continued to evolve as it attempts to achieve a just and free society.

facepalm....Really?

You keep going on and on about proving that natural rights exist well I am asking for you to show where my neighbor gets his right to tell me what to do? He has no rights that he was born with, according to you, so I wonder who gave him the right of authority to restrict my life in anyway or to even have any say in it whatsoever. No one else could have given him that right since they were not born with any rights either. So I am asking you where did everyone else get the right to restrict my life in any way?

I agree that governments are formed to protect the natural rights of the people but since natural rights are highly individualistic then government, at times, must act against the majority and protect those inalieanable rights that a single person has. This is why democracy is not the best government for ensuring natural rights since the mob law becomes renamed as the 'will of the majority'. It may sound better than a bunch of guys coming to your home and demanding everything you own but it is still the same thing but accompanied with legal authority.

 

[JBeukema]

5th column?

In fact, this supposed "fifth column" did not prove very effective, as evidenced by the fact that Madrid held out until 1939 despite very heavy fighting. Nevertheless, the term caught on and was used extensively, especially by those fighting the Fascists and Nazis. It was especially in wide use in Britain in the early stages of the Second World War. Their fear of the "fifth Column" was used as justification for the mass internment, on the Isle of Man, of German nationals who resided in the United Kingdom. The United States and Canada interned Japanese, German, and Italian citizens around the same time (early 1940s), using similar justification.

Fifth column - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You reveal much about your nature as a fearmonger and would-be tyrant.

Jacobin?

. The Jacobin Club was the most famous political club of the French Revolution. So called from the Dominican convent, where they originally met, in the Rue St. Jacques (Latin: Jacobus), Paris. At that time, the term was popularly applied to all supporters of revolutionary opinions.

So you accuse me of being a supporter of liberty as if that's a bad thing?


Stalinist, eh?

Your ignorance shines again.

Social democracy is... [opposed to] Stalinist communism.

Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ihopehefails]

Like you thinking that the FF speaking against direct democracy means they didn't want the representative democracy they established?

They didn't want Mob Rule - which is where democracy always heads without checks and balances to protect the minority.

Hence representative and not direct democracy and constitutional limitations on the powers and authorities of the governing bodies.

By god, she's finally getting it.

I think we are all getting the fact that you have no clue because she did not mention representative democracy as a check as you assumed. Representative democracy is just an easier way for direct democracy to function because none of us have the time to sit in a govt office all day so elect people who represent us. Its not meant to provide a check against us since we elect them to do what we want. We have something called a democratic republic which means that we have a limited democracy which only allows people to vote on some things such as taxes. We give the government that power and we vote on it but we did not give them any other power beyond that such as the power to decide what religion we all practice so we can't vote on that.

 

[JBeukema]

That the government is tasked with protecting the individual, genius, is part of the social contract which forms the government.

In the US, this aspect of the agreement was codified along with the rest of the orimary contract in the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why isn't it sufficient (for you) to accept that if nobody else has to participate or risk or contribute anything to make it possible, I have the right to do it?

Was you existence possible without your parents?

As an infant, was your continued existence possible without someone else caring for you and feeding you?

Care to reconsider your criteria?

Nope. It is my natural right to choose to engage in activity that could result in pregnancy or not. Once I choose to do so, however, I have involved others. The person who contributes the sperm and the new life that is begun as a result of my choice. And because I chose to bring a helpless new being into the world, I see it as my moral obligation to see it through the necessary processes to be able to competently attend to its own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. But if I do not choose to do that or am unable to do that, then I would see it as necessary to hand the child over to somebody who would take that responsibility.

It's pretty simple really.

You call it human invention. The Founders saw it as God given

Demonstrate that:
A - Your God exists
B - these 'rights' actually exist as more than a rhetorical device
C - Your God bestowed these rights

and yes, there was a strong religious underpinning to the concept

Meaning it is not based on reason or reality, but in superstition and theology. You've just shown that your rhetoric has no place in intelligent, honest, and reasonable discussion

Again what difference does it make whether or not my God exists in order for the concept and principle to be sound? If most of the Founders were men of devout faith, they did not require anybody else to see it their way. That would be a violation of unalienable rights. And even those who were more deist or agnostic or even atheist had no problem accepting the concept even when they didn't believe that a deity was involved in the process. And they also, to a man, recognized that the Constitution would not be defended and protected by any other than a moral people and that most of that morality would arise from religious faith.

You can believe that this has no place in intelligent, honest, and reasonable discussion. It is your unalienable right to believe that and to say that.

It is my unalienable right to believe otherwise and to point to history to show how it not only can be included in intelligent, honest, and reasonable discussion, but if it is not included in the discussion, the Constitution will continue to be dismantled, clause by clause, by those who do not believe in the concept of unalienable rights and who do not unstand that unalienable rights is the foundation of all human freedom.

 

[boedicca]

JB - you need to fully read the Wiki entries you seem to favor.

The Jacobins were sponsors of the French Reign of Terror. Try reading about it.

 

[JBeukema]

I think we are all getting the fact that you have no clue because she did not mention representative democracy as a check as you assumed.

Representative democracy can't be a check on a direct democracy, you idiot. They're two different systems.

The problems with a driect democracy are they reasons they went with a representative democracy and constitutional limitations on the powers and authorities of the governing bodies.

It's not that complicated.

Representative democracy is just an easier way for direct democracy to function

They're two different systems.

Direct Democracy: every american votes on everything

Representative Democracy: We vote for representatives to vote on and debate matters for us

 

[JBeukema]

Again what difference does it make whether or not my God exists in order for the concept and principle to be sound?

You claim your rights come from god. For that to happen, your god must exist.

Now, Demonstrate that:
A - Your God exists
B - these 'rights' actually exist as more than a rhetorical device
C - Your God bestowed these rights

 

[Oddball]

Again what difference does it make whether or not my God exists in order for the concept and principle to be sound?

You claim your rights come from god. For that to happen, your god must exist.

Now, Demonstrate that:
A - Your God exists
B - these 'rights' actually exist as more than a rhetorical device
C - Your God bestowed these rights

Reading for comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

 

[The T]

Context and history, bub. You lack both.

Like you thinking that the FF speaking against direct democracy means they didn't want the representative democracy they established?

They didn't want Mob Rule - which is where democracy always heads without checks and balances to protect the minority.

Exactly. Like it or not? The Constitution is based upon precepts that stem from Religion. The Founders said as much in the Declaration Of Independence...(The first step on the long road that was to become *US*)...

It was defined...*LIFE* *LIBERTY*, *The persuit of Happiness* [which for intents and purposes was property]. They were basic and they recognized they came from the 'Creator'...And were granted to the Individual *by* the creator.

Some reject the religious notion of this argument for the 'Theocracy' angle. Fair Enough...and why the FIRST AMENDMENT exists among other reasons.

But as to the reasons WHY we aren't a true Democracy to me are quite clear, and a real fine balancing act the Founders performed to cover all bases in the covenant between the Government and the Governed..(Which IS the Constitution).

It was to prevent 'Theocracies', and 'THUGOCRACIES' by the wording contained in the Constitution since not all in this nation belived in a higher power [GOD in any form]...and to prevent MEN from garnering power in the same respect by the tenants of a true Democracy.

A true Democracy IS Mob Rule, and eventually the rights of others would be swallowed up and forgotten by the ruling class [MOBS]. Checks and balances are of more import...and why there are 3 distinct Separate/Equal Branches to our form of government...(The balance)...

(See? I was getting to the balancing act). Theocracies are those governed by Religion...Thugocracies are those governed by greed of MEN...albiet the two can be melded in the case of 'Thugocracy' since the result IS the same. (See Iran)...

I'm getting a little ahead of myself here B...but I hope this helps explain things as *I* see them...Right now we have two rogue branches that could care a wit of what the people think...and they do what they will regardless. And thus my Term 'Thugocracy' on their part in their endeavour to trash the Constitution, and the Republican Form of government so carefully crafted by our Founders.

*My Opinion*

~T

 

[ihopehefails]

The State is nothing but myself and my neighbors and the rituals and formalities we establish in governing ourselves.

You can't show how I am biologically attached to the government in any way. It exist but so does walmart and I don't include myself as a member of that organization.

*facepalm*

So the State isn't a product of the People?

You don't support or believe in a government of, by, and for the People?

Walmart is a product of the people as well since it can't survive without the people's money and they even have a similar slogan like walmarr of, by, and for the customer. I go to walmart and realize it is a valuable service to the community but do I consider myself spiritually attached to it? Of course not because government is the same thing because it is needed to protect my freedom, ensure tranquility (keep the peace), and a few other things. We recognize its authority for that purpose which makes its authority a choice we make for ensuring our needs such as protecting our natural rights.

When if f's up on that we should not hesitate to burn it to the ground but if we decided to do that I will be doing it with an American flag strapped to my back and saying "USA! USA! USA!".

At which point you will say I am some sort of nationlistic goon but I would prefer that to some kind of statist goon anyday.

 

[JBeukema]

Walmart is a product of the people as well since it can't survive without the people's money and they even have a similar slogan like walmarr of, by, and for the customer

Really? You vote for Walmart CEOs? If not, it's not of the People.

What is its objective?

You're an idiot.

 

[boedicca]

Let's get back to your admiration of the Jacobins:

On 7 September 1793, Paris sections — encouraged by the enragés ("enraged ones") Jacques Roux and Jacques Hébert — took over the Convention, calling for administrative and political purges, a low fixed price for bread, and a limitation of the electoral franchise to sans-culottes alone. With the backing of the National Guard, they persuaded the Convention to arrest 31 Girondist leaders, including Jacques Pierre Brissot. Following these arrests, the Jacobins gained control of the Committee of Public Safety on 10 June, installing the revolutionary dictatorship. On 13 July the assassination of Jean-Paul Marat — a Jacobin leader and journalist known for his bloodthirsty rhetoric — by Charlotte Corday, a Girondist, resulted in further increase of Jacobin political influence.[2] Georges Danton, the leader of the August 1792 uprising against the King, was removed from the Committee. On 27 July Maximillien Robespierre, known in Republican circles as "the Incorruptible" for his ascetic dedication to his ideals, made his entrance, quickly becoming the most influential member of the Committee as it moved to take radical measures against the Revolution's domestic and foreign enemies.[3]

Reign of Terror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The T]

Walmart is a product of the people as well since it can't survive without the people's money and they even have a similar slogan like walmarr of, by, and for the customer

Really? You vote for Walmart CEOs? If not, it's not of the People.

What is its objective?

You're an idiot.

Really? Could patronizing the establishment and spending hard-earned denero not be considered a *VOTE*?

 

[ihopehefails]

Again what difference does it make whether or not my God exists in order for the concept and principle to be sound?

You claim your rights come from god. For that to happen, your god must exist.

Now, Demonstrate that:
A - Your God exists
B - these 'rights' actually exist as more than a rhetorical device
C - Your God bestowed these rights

He actually asked does a person need God to exist in order for the concept of rights belonging to us as a matter of birthright to be true? I guess you want a document to show that well I can't find one but since we need documentation for all our rights show me the documentation where society has the right to interfere with what I think I have the right to do? I'm sure you can whip out with some kind of law or something and claim it was created by the social agreement but the authority to create that document came from where?

I would think that if no individual has any rights as his own then how can we create something that is made up of more than one individual, such as society, and claim it has any rights whatsoever? Its like saying one gram of salt has no taste but 50 grams of the same salt does? How does that logic work out?

 

[Oddball]

Again what difference does it make whether or not my God exists in order for the concept and principle to be sound?

You claim your rights come from god. For that to happen, your god must exist.

Now, Demonstrate that:
A - Your God exists
B - these 'rights' actually exist as more than a rhetorical device
C - Your God bestowed these rights

He actually asked does a person need God to exist in order for the concept of rights belonging to us as a matter of birthright to be true? I guess you want a document to show that well I can't find one but since we need documentation for all our rights show me the documentation where society has the right to interfere with what I think I have the right to do? I'm sure you can whip out with some kind of law or something and claim it was created by the social agreement but the authority to create that document came from where?

I would think that if no individual has any rights as his own then how can we create something that is made up of more than one individual, such as society, and claim it has any rights whatsoever? Its like saying one gram of salt has no taste but 50 grams of the same salt does? How does that logic work out?

It doesn't work because he's not using logic...He's using the rationale of the looter.

 

[JBeukema]

Let's get back to your admiration of the Jacobins:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

The only one obsessed with the Jacobins is Dude.