Do Natural Rights Actually Exist?

[dblack]

which is the challenge, as soon as there is more than one person on the island the rights start to interfere with each other.

Yup. And the genius of the American experiment is that it clearly calls out balancing and maximizing our rights as the purpose of government. It's not there to create utopia. It's not there to provide us with our needs. It's not there to make us "good" people. It's not there for one group to bully everyone else. It's there to make it possible for us all to get along and still be as free as possible.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yup. And the genius of the American experiment is that it clearly calls out balancing and maximizing our rights as the purpose of government. It's not there to create utopia. It's not there to provide us with our needs. It's not there to make us "good" people. It's not there for one group to bully everyone else. It's there to make it possible for us all to get along and still be as free as possible.

*through self governance

An important bit

 

[dblack]

*through self governance

An important bit

Yep. But I suspect that means something different to you than it does to me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yep. But I suspect that means something different to you than it does to me.

Probably means something different to lots of people. It's a vague term.

And they are all correct. Who is to say they aren't? That's why consensus is also a cornerstone of the system.

 

[dblack]

Probably means something different to lots of people. It's a vague term.

And they are all correct. Who is to say they aren't? That's why consensus is also a cornerstone of the system.

Consensus is another term of frequent equivocation. It's not the same as majority rule.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Consensus is another term of frequent equivocation. It's not the same as majority rule.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes the consensus among our representatives our judges goes against the majority.

 

[dblack]

Sometimes it is. Sometimes the consensus among our representatives our judges goes against the majority.

Here we go ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Here we go ...

I didn't make value judgments. Don't get rabid.

 

[dblack]

Sorry to be cynical, but from our previous discussions, your vision of "self-governance" boils down to - we take a vote and force everyone to conform to the majority's preference.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry to be cynical, but from our previous discussions, your vision of "self-governance" boils down to - we force everyone to conform to the majority's preference.

Or, that was your misunderstanding. One of the good protections of a republic is that the majority does not always get what it wants.

But that is best decided through rational debate and evidence, not gerrymandering and an outdated, obsolete electoral college.

But that's what we have. So we work within that system.

 

[dblack]

Or, that was your misunderstanding. One of the good protections of a republic is that the majority does not always get what it wants.

But that is best decided through rational debate and evidence, not gerrymandering and an outdated, obsolete electoral college.

But that's what we have. So we work within that system.

Agree on the gerrymandering, but the electoral college - in particular the aspect of it that provides a counter-balance to national majority rule, is a valuable safeguard.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Agree on the gerrymandering, but the electoral college - in particular the aspect of it that provides a counter-balance to national majority rule, is a valuable safeguard.

I see that it can be. But wow has it shown its obsolescence lately.

The primary reason it was created is obsolete. Its secondary reason was to keep a person like Trump out of the White House. And it did the opposite.

Eek.

 

[dblack]

I see that it can be. But wow has it shown its obsolescence lately.

I don't see how. I'm not happy about the fact that, in some iterations, it's benefited Trump. But that's largely because Democrats aren't doing their job. The electoral college requires to them to make an honest effort to represent the interests of the entire nation. Not just the "blue states", not just the urban centers.

But they just don't want to do that. They don't want to hear from the people who aren't onboard with their social engineering agenda. They want pure majority rule so that can force their vision of a "good society" on people who don't share their views.

The primary reason it was created is obsolete.

The primary reason it was created still exists. The balance it sought to achieve was necessary to convince all the states to sign on to the Union. If we had a Constitutional Convention to revisit the issue, we'd run into the same problem the Founders faced. States without dense population centers have very little interest in signing on to a voting system that would largely ignore their interests. We'd need something like the EC to make the offer appealing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The primary reason it was created still exists.

The primary reason was slave states fearing underrepresentation.

The secondary reason was to keep a person like Trump out of the White House.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Do Natural Rights Actually Exist? If they do not then it's all intellectual bs. If they do, what are they? Can and do people who believe natural rights actually exist, agree on them -- what they are and are not?

I often see things similar to this Wikipedia entry:
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights).

Do natural rights trump laws? If so...

No. Next question.

 

[dblack]

The primary reason was slave states fearing underrepesentation.

That's historical revisionism and simply not true. The original elector system had nothing to do with slavery. Seriously, read up on it.

The secondary reason was to keep a person like Trump out of the White House.

Yep. And the reason that no longer works is all the efforts to move away from the elector system - eg regulation requiring electors to follow majority rule. If such provisions weren't the norm, I'd bet heavily that he'd never been elected.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's historical revisionism and simply not true. The original elector system had nothing to do with slavery. Seriously, read up on it.

I have. Very much. That was indeed the force that won out.

One may say it was considered for other reasons. But the two reasons I mentioned are what won the day.

 

[dblack]

I have. Very much.

Have you read straight, neutral historical texts? -> Electoral College History

Or just blogs by people with an agenda?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Have you read straight, neutral historical texts? -> Electoral College History

Or just blogs by people with an agenda?

Revisionists love calling everyone else revisionist. Yawn.

 

[dblack]

Revisionists love calling everyone else revisionist. Yawn.

Ah.. twit mode. I figured you'd end up there. Seeyabye.