Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[Oddball]

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

You've provided garbage copy-n-pasted from anywhere and everywhere (i.e. appeal to authority).

Like on numerous other occasions, you think you're clever even though your lack of savvy is evident to virtually everyone else.

 

[ihopehefails]

That's right, when you can't discuss the matter intelligently- just invoke Hitler.

I think I made a good point because the jews obviosley thought they had an inalienable right to live but a majority of the NAZIs in power thought otherwise. Clearly the state was not interested in protecting those rights. It then allowed the germans to take everything they had. See what happens when the state doesn't protect the rights of the individual against society?

So you're arguing that something must exist because you don't like reality?

Your reality is one where the state is God because why would give the state so much authority over your own personal being as in what your basic 'human rights' are.

 

[JBeukema]

Citing a definition is not a fallacious appeal to authority.

But far be it from you to know what you're talking about.

In summary.

 

[JBeukema]

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

 

[boedicca]

Context and history, bub. You lack both.

 

[hortysir]

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

So I can extinguish your life without fear of repercussion, as you aren't ordained with the inalienable right to life?

(please don't anybody construe that as a threat.....it was just an extreme hypothetical)

 

[JBeukema]

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?

 

[ihopehefails]

Right. For example, people vote in the death penalty, which clearly violates the inalienable right to life.

But of course, there is no such thing as "natural rights." All rights are confirmed by man. Natural rights are merely an ideal, albeit a noble one.

That because govt of any kind removes your inalieanable rights...

Now how confused are you?

If a right was INALIENABLE, no government COULD take it away from you.

Hell, Ihope, any child with a gun can take away every RIGHT you have.

So where's your inalienable right?

There is NO such thing.

You can tell yourselve it exists, but I defy you to show me one that I couldn't deny you if I choose to do so.

How true but anything taken away in that act such as life or property is a violation of that person's rights. The victim did not need anyone else to tell him that he does not want to get shot and that he had a right to live because if he didn't believe he didn't have a right to his own property or his life he would just volunteer to be shot. He didn't do that because he knew that it was his life and he has the sole right over it.

Are you saying that people don't have a right to live unless you grant it to them?

 

[JBeukema]

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

So I can extinguish your life without fear of repercussion, as you aren't ordained with the inalienable right to life?

(please don't anybody construe that as a threat.....it was just an extreme hypothetical)

Most likely he doesn't live alone in the mountains and is part of a society with a contract that means your killing him results in collective action against yourself, most probably through a court system

 

[Oddball]

Wow...Where'd you score all that straw?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Sure they can be enumerated but why bother? As long as it is understood that a natural right is everything that we think or do that requires no participation or contribution from anybody else, who wants to take the lifetime it would require to write down every possible thing that would be included in that? 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?

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?

If it is your building owned free and clear with no outstanding obligation to any other, and you can burn it to the ground without endangering or infringing on any other, then the Founders would say that it is your unalienable right to dispose of your property however you choose.

To burn somebody elses building or to steal requires unwilling participation and/or contribution of another and therefore that does not fall within the scope of natural rights.

Clarify.

What of wars? Self-defense? Capital punishment?

Wars and/or capital punishment are or at least should be included in the social contract as the means to secure and protect the unalienable, legal, civil, and constitutional rights of the people. The social contract will include consequences for violating the rights of others, else there is no other means by which the peoples' government can secure and protect those rights.

Self defense of course does defend and protect our rights when another presumes to violate them.

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.

You call it human invention. The Founders saw it as God given and yes, there was a strong religious underpinning to the concept. The Founders, almost to a man, were of deep religious faith and, almost to a man, knew that the Constitution would not be protected and defended by other than a religious and moral people. Neverthless, they also recognized that religion misused can also be a force that usurps natural rights and ensured that while government would not be able to infringe on religious beliefs and practices, neither would government be placed under any religious or any other authority other than that of the people as a whole.

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

Why? What does that possibly have to do with the concept or principle stated?

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

theft?

Theft requires participation/contribution of somebody else and therefore it is not a natural right to steal from somebody else.

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.

It does not fall within the scope of natural rights for me to demand or require you to provide me with anything, nor you to demand or require that I provide you with anything.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

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

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 to determine what I can or can't do if he has no rights of his own? Who gave him the right to tell me what to do? No one else has any rights either so it is not possible for him or the entire society to give him the right to tell me what to do since no one has any rights whatsoever.

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.

 

[JBeukema]

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?

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.

 

[mattskramer]

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

So I can extinguish your life without fear of repercussion, as you aren't ordained with the inalienable right to life?

(please don't anybody construe that as a threat.....it was just an extreme hypothetical)

No. You might be physically capable of extinguishing my life but you are not allowed to do so. A couple of things work in my favor: Your value system based on your beliefs, upbringing, philosophy, and your unwillingness to risk being charged with murder.

 

[boedicca]

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.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

 

[The T]

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?

 

[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.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

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.

 

[mattskramer]

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'?

The existence of God is a theory. Even it is proven to all that God exists, people may still ignore him. In general, people have decided that they should, in general, live their lives as they see fit without intrusion from others. Yet, there are people who support the existence of "victimless crimes". I agree with some things that the founders said and did. I disagree with some things that the founders said or did.

I believe in liberty to a good extent. To what extent do you believe in liberty? Would you allow people to exchange sexual behavior for money (prostitution)? Would you allow casinos nation-wide? Let people be free to smoke pot.