Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[JBeukema]

O Really?

Did you look up 'democracy'?

S: (n) democracy, republic, commonwealth (a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them)

Ever heard of 'elections'?

S: (n) majority rule, democracy (the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group)

Are you familiar with the Senate?
Also feel free to look up the difference between governmental type and governmental form, as well as direct and representative democracy.

 

[Oddball]

America wasn't set forth do be a democracy, chucklehead.

 

[The T]

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.

You would think that you needn't spell it out...*OK* now I'm being a silly bugger considering whom we're dealing with. Nice exlpination. Sad it's lost on so many that think it takes other MEN to give them what's rightfully theirs to start with...there *I* go again being silly...

*I* Better cease while the LIBS think I'm still behind.

 

[boedicca]

America wasn't set forth do be a democracy, chucklehead.

JB found stuff on the internets, and he's sticking with it.

 

[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.

 

[JBeukema]

America wasn't set forth do be a democracy, chucklehead.

O Rly?

So it wasn't set forth to have democratic elections so the government would be of, by, and for the People?

 

[Oddball]

That is an ASPECT OF the republic, not its be-all-end-all form.

If America was to be a democracy, who would need an Executive and a Senate?

You really are quite ignorant of this subject, aren't you?

 

[JBeukema]

If America was to be a democracy, who would need an Executive and a Senate?

You confuse democracy (type) with [direct] Democracy (form).

America is, by definition, a democracy, being of a democratic type. Direct Democracy and various forms of representative democracy such as our as the UK's are both democracy by definition.

Compare: type versus form.


You really are quite ignorant of this subject, aren't you? Not surprising, though. Far be it from you to ever know what you're talking about.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Here is where the terms get fuzzy. You don't have to define the natural rights, but simply have to agree that those thoughts, concepts, ideas, activities of humankind that require no participation or contribution by any other are so defined natural rights.

That does not mean that the people cannot include privileges--that which does require participation or contribution by others--within the social contract and protect these by law.

The right to life means simply that each life is sacrosanct and cannot be taken from another at will. The right to live, breathe, think, exist, speak, sing, dance or whatever is a God given unalienable right and it includes seeking or doing that which will preserve and sustain our lives. It does not include requiring another to provide that for us.

 

[Oddball]

If America was to be a democracy, who would need an Executive and a Senate?

You confuse democracy (type) with [direct] Democracy (form).

America is, by definition, a democracy, being of a democratic type. Direct Democracy and various forms of representative democracy such as our as the UK's are both democracy by definition.

Compare: type versus form.

Why don't you just admit your total ignorance and quit with the maladroit attempts at semantic fudging?

 

[JBeukema]

Here is where the terms get fuzzy. You don't have to define the natural rights

Yes, you do. To argue something exists, you must first define it.

Once defined and demonstrated, they can be enumerated.

but simply have to agree that those thoughts, concepts, ideas, activities of humankind that require no participation or contribution by any other are so defined natural rights.

Using your definition, I have the 'natural right' to steal and to burn any building to the ground, since it requires no participation or contribution by another person for me to so act.

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase?

The right to life means simply that each life is sacrosanct and cannot be taken from another at will

Clarify.

What of wars? Self-defense? Capital punishment?

Such a concept as sacrosanct life is purely a human invention primarily rooted in and justified using religion.Nature shows no such principle in action when a lion eats a gazelle or a man succumbs to ebola.

Indeed the very use of the term 'sacrosanct' reveals the religious nature and roots of your claims.

. The right to live, breathe, think, exist, speak, sing, dance or whatever is a God given unalienable right

Demonstrate that:
A - your god exists
B - these 'rights' exist
C - your god bestowed or granted these 'natural rights'

and it includes seeking or doing that which will preserve and sustain our lives.

theft?

It does not include requiring another to provide that for us.

Because yo do not wish to provide? You merely make assertions regarding what rights you claim do or do not exist. Assertion =/= demonstration.

 

[boedicca]

If America was to be a democracy, who would need an Executive and a Senate?

You confuse democracy (type) with [direct] Democracy (form).

You confuse making a convincing argument with digging yourself into a deeper hole.

So, carry on, bub.

 

[JBeukema]

Why don't you just admit your total ignorance and quit with the maladroit attempts at semantic fudging?

Appeal to ridicule = admitting defeat.

I've given the definitions that prove me correct. All you've done is cry.

 

[boedicca]

Using your definition, I have the 'natural right' to steal and to burn any building to the ground, since it requires no participation or contribution by another person for me to so act.

That is completely inaccurate. One's natural rights end where they infringe upon another's.

Our natural rights are negative rights: The Right To Be Left Alone. They do not involve the right to harm others.

 

[Oddball]

but simply have to agree that those thoughts, concepts, ideas, activities of humankind that require no participation or contribution by any other are so defined natural rights.

Using your definition, I have the 'natural right' to steal and to burn any building to the ground, since it requires no participation or contribution by another person for me to so act.

Good God *gaaaasp* are you one insufferable ignoramus!

Those acts of aggression require the participation by the victim....You're completely free to destroy your own property, though.

 

[boedicca]

Why don't you just admit your total ignorance and quit with the maladroit attempts at semantic fudging?

Appeal to ridicule = admitting defeat.

I've given the definitions that prove me correct. All you've done is cry.

All you've done is parrot things you've found on the interets without any understanding of our history and the philosophy upon which the Founders based our system of government.

 

[Oddball]

Why don't you just admit your total ignorance and quit with the maladroit attempts at semantic fudging?

Appeal to ridicule = admitting defeat.

I've given the definitions that prove me correct. All you've done is cry.

The definitions you've given are the product of Google and no serious thought on the matter.

Your horribly inept and piddling parsing of semantics is only the most glaring evidence of that fact.

 

[JBeukema]

I provided the very definitions and all you have to say its 'wel, all the dictionaries and scholars are wrong'

 

[JBeukema]

Saying America is a republic and not a democracy is like saying a dog is a mammal but not an animal

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

Since you are so up on that are you aware that the first amendment starts out with 'congress shall pass no law...' which implies a limitation of the government and not on the people. It doesn't even say people have the right to speak freely blah blah blah. Since the government can't restrict your speech nor does it grant it to you then where does that right come from? I hope it comes from somewhere because according to you logic government has to grant it to you and I can't find anywhere where it says I have these rights.

Check out what the ninth amendment says as well because it refers to 'rights retained by the people' which are all things the government does not have. It would seem that the constitution mentions a ton of protected rights that were not written down.

Don't forget the tenth amendment wich is a huge bill of rights for the states but you seem to forget that one.