Demonstrating Natural Rights?

[JBeukema]

It should be well known by now that I have always held in my heart that Man has certain inalienable rights. Indeed, several key points of my ideology are based around my personal morality and this belief, as I have come to determine is the case for every other person I have discussed such matters with. If the right to life in not an inherent natural right, then one cannot reasonable defend any other rights as such. Let us be clear that such matters can still be resolved through social contract- that is, so long as the People agree to defend all life, there is no danger of losing legal protection of one's right to exist. The problem, however is this:

If we are unable to defend certain rights, such as the rights to life and liberty, as natural and inalienable in nature, then we are wholly dependent upon social contract to defend these rights, as the only possible conclusion would be that they are granted purely by the group. The crisis lies in the fact that if such a position is adopted, then there is no line of reasonable or logical defense against murder, abortion, slavery, or any other crime or act against Man if society fails to protect the People. Furthermore, is such rights are not inherent, then we cannot demand that society protect them beyond our ability to wage war against them. We are at the mercy of the masses, and our only defense if the threat or use of force. This means that any minority, beyond the pragmatic inability to defend itself, is also without any reasonable grounds to stand upon should they wish to persuade the masses

This is truly a disturbing thought. How, then, can we defend our belief that such rights are inherent, without relying on mythology or emotion-laden words? What logical defense do we have? If we are to protect the rights of all people, we must address this matter with the greatest urgency- there is no matter more important to the ideological or pragmatic defense of human rights, for if we fail then we have no defense against a civilization seemingly intent on devaluing human life and casting aside all ethical hindrances in favor of libertine and gluttonous excess, without the slightest regard for any consequence to one's fellow Man.

(Let it be known that my hope is that I can be shown wrong in my concern)

So, the question is this: can any inherent right (as opposed to positive rights) actually be demonstrated to resist?

 

[RodISHI]

I'm not into protecting certain claimed rights.

Example of what some think they have the right to that I refuse to protect.

The "Fistgate" incident: What homosexual activists in schools do with children
Students as young as 12 given graphic instruction in bizarre homosexual sex acts by state employees
UPDATED: June 15, 2009

Call me a prude.

 

[eots]

"Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."

well now that you put it that way...its just all sunshine and lollipops...isn't it...funny how something as beautiful and wholesome as ...fisting can get such a bad rap...it really needs to be embraced into our culture...like apple pie ...mom ...a hamburger and coke... fisting your best girl after the big game..on a Saturday night

 

[RodISHI]

"Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."

well now that you put it that way...its just all sunshine and lollipops...isn't it...funny how something as beautiful and wholesome as ...fisting can get such a bad rap...it really needs to be embraced into our culture...like apple pie ...mom ...a hamburger and coke... fisting your best girl after the big game..on a Saturday night

Or suicide bombing, eh?

 

[eots]

"Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."

well now that you put it that way...its just all sunshine and lollipops...isn't it...funny how something as beautiful and wholesome as ...fisting can get such a bad rap...it really needs to be embraced into our culture...like apple pie ...mom ...a hamburger and coke... fisting your best girl after the big game..on a Saturday night

Or suicide bombing, eh?

no that would be un-American...The American way is to grab a handful of automatic weapons and have a good ol shoot out until the cops kill you...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

well now that you put it that way...its just all sunshine and lollipops...isn't it...funny how something as beautiful and wholesome as ...fisting can get such a bad rap...it really needs to be embraced into our culture...like apple pie ...mom ...a hamburger and coke... fisting your best girl after the big game..on a Saturday night

Or suicide bombing, eh?

no that would be un-American...The American way is to grab a handful of automatic weapons and have a good ol shoot out until the cops kill you...

Except almost no crimes are committed with, nor murders committed with , fully automatic weapons in the US.

 

[Small Deb]

30,000 people in the US die from guns every year. You can thank the NRA for that.

 

[pinqy]

30,000 people in the US die from guns every year. You can thank the NRA for that.

Do you blame the even greater number of deaths by car on AAA? And deaths by knives? Hanging? Drowning?

 

[Small Deb]

30,000 people in the US die from guns every year. You can thank the NRA for that.

Do you blame the even greater number of deaths by car on AAA? And deaths by knives? Hanging? Drowning?

People don't buy cars to run people over, that's called an accident. I seriously doubt that there were 30,000 accidental deaths by gunfire, lol. Just look at any other country where guns are heavily restricted like Canada or the UK and together they both total less than 500 per year probably.

 

[Dr Grump]

There were 12,000 homicides by guns in the US in 2004 (another thread I read recently).

Where I come from there were about 10 homicides from guns....per head of population we need about 180 deaths down here. IOW, I'm 1800 percent more likely to die in the US from a gun...yay!

 

[JBeukema]

Ignore SD. I get the feeling that particular troll is hardly new

 

[Polaris]

It should be well known by now that I have always held in my heart that Man has certain inalienable rights. Indeed, several key points of my ideology are based around my personal morality and this belief, as I have come to determine is the case for every other person I have discussed such matters with. If the right to life in not an inherent natural right, then one cannot reasonable defend any other rights as such. Let us be clear that such matters can still be resolved through social contract- that is, so long as the People agree to defend all life, there is no danger of losing legal protection of one's right to exist. The problem, however is this:

If we are unable to defend certain rights, such as the rights to life and liberty, as natural and inalienable in nature, then we are wholly dependent upon social contract to defend these rights, as the only possible conclusion would be that they are granted purely by the group. The crisis lies in the fact that if such a position is adopted, then there is no line of reasonable or logical defense against murder, abortion, slavery, or any other crime or act against Man if society fails to protect the People. Furthermore, is such rights are not inherent, then we cannot demand that society protect them beyond our ability to wage war against them. We are at the mercy of the masses, and our only defense if the threat or use of force. This means that any minority, beyond the pragmatic inability to defend itself, is also without any reasonable grounds to stand upon should they wish to persuade the masses

This is truly a disturbing thought. How, then, can we defend our belief that such rights are inherent, without relying on mythology or emotion-laden words? What logical defense do we have? If we are to protect the rights of all people, we must address this matter with the greatest urgency- there is no matter more important to the ideological or pragmatic defense of human rights, for if we fail then we have no defense against a civilization seemingly intent on devaluing human life and casting aside all ethical hindrances in favor of libertine and gluttonous excess, without the slightest regard for any consequence to one's fellow Man.

(Let it be known that my hope is that I can be shown wrong in my concern)

So, the question is this: can any inherent right (as opposed to positive rights) actually be demonstrated to resist?

Back to the question of what are rights founded in... They exist "in nature," but only to the extent that human beings (who exist in nature, after all) have pointed to them, and been willing to use force to uphold them. Let me try this analogy: the reality of rights is much akin to the reality of the value of paper money. Rights don't have a reality separate from our own assertions about their valid application, just like paper money doesn't have value apart from our consensus agreement upon it as a medium of exchange. The value of both is grounded in assertion - the value of both is to that extent "made up" - but that doesn't mean that such an assertion doesn't have actual force. It makes a very real material difference, after all, how many numbers are on our balance sheet - even though they're "just" numbers.

Human society can manage without the concept of "rights," just like it can get along without a fiat currency. We could for example have a system of "chartered" liberties (like they did in pre-Modern Europe), just as we could have a trading system based entirely on bartering. But experience has shown that the quality of our lives are much enhanced, when we have both 'natural' rights and a fiat currency.

Again to close I would stress the point that the though the very existence of 'rights' in the world, depends upon our own assertion of them, this does not mean that they are arbitrary or unreal. For the very nature, the very being of a right, is that of a claim of a certain power; such claims directly reflect what we ("self-evidently") take to be of immanent interest to our lives. Inasmuch as it is only rational to want to improve one's quality of life, and inasmuch as our nature as human beings is essentially a rational nature, the assertion of rights is something that is ultimately rooted in, and legitimated by, our nature.

 

[JBeukema]

Back to the question of what are rights founded in... They exist "in nature,"

Demonstrate

but only to the extent that human beings (who exist in nature, after all) have pointed to them, and been willing to use force to uphold them.

You just contradicted yourself by claiming the existence of natural rights, then saying that only positive rights exist.

Let me try this analogy: the reality of rights is much akin to the reality of the value of paper money. Rights don't have a reality separate from our own assertions about their valid application, just like paper money doesn't have value apart from our consensus agreement upon it as a medium of exchange.

You have just argued my case for me. You have shown that only positive rights exist, and there are no natural, inalienable rights.

Again to close I would stress the point that the though the very existence of 'rights' in the world, depends upon our own assertion of them, this does not mean that they are arbitrary or unreal.

Yes it does, for any who are not granted any such rights by society

 

[Polaris]

Back to the question of what are rights founded in... They exist "in nature,"

Demonstrate

but only to the extent that human beings (who exist in nature, after all) have pointed to them, and been willing to use force to uphold them.

You just contradicted yourself by claiming the existence of natural rights, then saying that only positive rights exist.

Let me try this analogy: the reality of rights is much akin to the reality of the value of paper money. Rights don't have a reality separate from our own assertions about their valid application, just like paper money doesn't have value apart from our consensus agreement upon it as a medium of exchange.

You have just argued my case for me. You have shown that only positive rights exist, and there are no natural, inalienable rights.

Again to close I would stress the point that the though the very existence of 'rights' in the world, depends upon our own assertion of them, this does not mean that they are arbitrary or unreal.

Yes it does, for any who are not granted any such rights by society

Man, JB, you are a scrappy guy, aren't you. Once again I get the feeling you don't bother to read through the whole post before you start with the ripostes. A little more discipline would be good. No offense - just sayin'.

If you had read for comprehension, it would be clear to you that yes, I don't believe that "rights" are some sort of metaphysical entities that attach to us somehow, in some inalienable way.

I would say that rights are a natural expression of life in human community, very like the broader phenomena of language and culture.

Rights are conventional, just as language or culture is conventional. That is, they are contingent phenomena, but they are not arbitrary. To illustrate this point: you can't as an individual get to make up what words mean; but still language is shaped and changed by communities over time. In other words, language as a convention undergoes transformation - language is contingent, but not arbitrary. Talk of 'rights' is essentially the same. Consensus is arrived at, gradually and in community, over what the prerogatives are of divers members of the society.

This consensus can change, of course, and this is the critical thing to understand when talking about the relative "reality" of our rights vis-a-vis others who dwell outside our culture.

The very nature of the idea of vested prerogatives, of 'rights,' is the conviction that they have a general application, one not just confined to my society. If I believe that women have a right to own property, I believe that this goes for women everywhere, not just in my society. This belief in the general applicability of rights may not make an immediate material difference to women who are in patriarchal societies, outside my own; but if and when the liberated society I inhabit comes into contact with such a traditionalist society, there will be a... negotiation amongst the two value-systems, until a new consensus is arrived at. And so in that respect, those who do not enjoy the rights that I do, are implicated in my belief system, owing to the very nature of 'rights' as a product of a moral assertion, and an assertion that entails universal applicability.

Again, the vital thing to keep in mind is, our choices are not simply between an absolutistic view of truth on the one hand, and a simplistic relativism that skirts nihilism on the other.

 

[jillian]

I'm not into protecting certain claimed rights.

Example of what some think they have the right to that I refuse to protect.

The "Fistgate" incident: What homosexual activists in schools do with children
Students as young as 12 given graphic instruction in bizarre homosexual sex acts by state employees
UPDATED: June 15, 2009

Call me a prude.

is there some need you have to post homophobic propaganda? just wondering...

I wonder though if you intended to make a point relating to the actual O/P. Whether you did or not, you did show that "natural rights" are nothing more than a philosophical construct which doesn't exist without enforcement mechanisms.

Too bad you chose something that i doubt anyone but raging homophobes would concern themselves with.

 

[Agnapostate]

Natural rights are "nonsense on stilts," in the words of Jeremy Bentham. It's far sounder to accord rights as determined by the general consequences of that process.

 

[RodISHI]

I'm not into protecting certain claimed rights.

Example of what some think they have the right to that I refuse to protect.

The "Fistgate" incident: What homosexual activists in schools do with children
Students as young as 12 given graphic instruction in bizarre homosexual sex acts by state employees
UPDATED: June 15, 2009

Call me a prude.

is there some need you have to post homophobic propaganda? just wondering...

I wonder though if you intended to make a point relating to the actual O/P. Whether you did or not, you did show that "natural rights" are nothing more than a philosophical constructs which don't exist without enforcement mechanisms.

Too bad you chose something that i doubt anyone but raging homophobes would concern themselves with.

My goodness did that ruffles your feathers or have you even looked at the website listed. I doubt that you did. You would rather call someone who thinks that teaching twelve year old's sexual moves is wrong so that person is a "homophobe". You are so worried about your own rights as a jew, yet you must not think that others have the right to manage what their children are taught nor should they have a say as to where their tax money is spent. Tell me Jillian does your child go to public school? Are you all up for spending money to have your child taught lewd practices at the ripe age of twelve years old supported by tax dollars? I'm not. That scope of their rights intruding on my rights as a parent goes beyond the realm of inherent rights that they may have for designs on my children as future sexual partners.

I don't support the rights of rapist who believe that woman are just there for their pleasure either even though they have different thoughts on the matter. That would be an intrusive right another has no rights to expect.

I do support the right of gun owners as long as they abide in the law. Now criminals think they have rights to but they lose those rights when they break the law. That is not within the scope of the OP? I'm not an attorney nor do I have that education you have so keep it simple when you speak to me if you can.

Heck some men and women believe they have right to beat or mistreat their spouse. Property rights ya know.

Drugs have been determine by law to be illegal in cases where the druggies rights are non existent although a drug dealer would say your invading his rights to make a living off of someone else's miseries. The druggies need to pay for those drugs so they steal and abuse others. Since these are proven to be detrimental to society as a whole society ruled that these things would not be inalienable rights. These are not natural rights as these are unnatural acts.

You jumped all over that post here while back about the park that the Boy Scouts operate being sued for two lesbians that had never actually stepped foot into the park yet they claimed that they thought that they would be treated differently. You compared that to yourself having to walk through a bunch of jihadist. Tsk, tsk, you need something to say I suppose even if it is just a slam to go along with your "Libtard" mentality when anyone says anything that you don't agree with that you can claim is being a "homophobe".

 

[JBeukema]

The incident in question, Ridishi was inappropriate for discussion in the classroom

 

[jillian]

I'm not into protecting certain claimed rights.

Example of what some think they have the right to that I refuse to protect.

Call me a prude.

is there some need you have to post homophobic propaganda? just wondering...

I wonder though if you intended to make a point relating to the actual O/P. Whether you did or not, you did show that "natural rights" are nothing more than a philosophical constructs which don't exist without enforcement mechanisms.

Too bad you chose something that i doubt anyone but raging homophobes would concern themselves with.

My goodness did that ruffles your feathers or have you even looked at the website listed. I doubt that you did. You would rather call someone who thinks that teaching twelve year old's sexual moves is wrong so that person is a "homophobe". You are so worried about your own rights as a jew, yet you must not think that others have the right to manage what their children are taught nor should they have a say as to where their tax money is spent. Tell me Jillian does your child go to public school? Are you all up for spending money to have your child taught lewd practices at the ripe age of twelve years old supported by tax dollars? I'm not. That scope of their rights intruding on my rights as a parent goes beyond the realm of inherent rights that they may have for designs on my children as future sexual partners.

I don't support the rights of rapist who believe that woman are just there for their pleasure either even though they have different thoughts on the matter. That would be an intrusive right another has no rights to expect.

I do support the right of gun owners as long as they abide in the law. Now criminals think they have rights to but they lose those rights when they break the law. That is not within the scope of the OP? I'm not an attorney nor do I have that education you have so keep it simple when you speak to me if you can.

Heck some men and women believe they have right to beat or mistreat their spouse. Property rights ya know.

Drugs have been determine by law to be illegal in cases where the druggies rights are non existent although a drug dealer would say your invading his rights to make a living off of someone else's miseries. The druggies need to pay for those drugs so they steal and abuse others. Since these are proven to be detrimental to society as a whole society ruled that these things would not be inalienable rights. These are not natural rights as these are unnatural acts.

You jumped all over that post here while back about the park that the Boy Scouts operate being sued for two lesbians that had never actually stepped foot into the park yet they claimed that they thought that they would be treated differently. You compared that to yourself having to walk through a bunch of jihadist. Tsk, tsk, you need something to say I suppose even if it is just a slam to go along with your "Libtard" mentality when anyone says anything that you don't agree with that you can claim is being a "homophobe".

lots of words trying to defend yourself. i looked at your link which is why i knew it was homophobic trash. homophobia is mindless hatred. your post qualifies. live with it, love it, embrace it since you choose to represent yourself with it.

as to the rest, what i said stands.

 

[RodISHI]

lots of words trying to defend yourself. i looked at your link which is why i knew it was homophobic trash. homophobia is mindless hatred. your post qualifies. live with it, love it, embrace it since you choose to represent yourself with it.

as to the rest, what i said stands.

Defend myself from who? You? You have to be kidding. People who think they have rights to trash other people's rights to protect their children like you are just hypocrites trying to push their own agenda. That is mindless hatred my dear.