Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[Toro]

Specious argument anyways.

If our rights to our lives and property aren't inherent to our being (i.e. natural), then it only follows that we only enjoy "rights" that some authority is willing to "allow" us.

Those aren't rights, they're privileges...There's a huge difference.

There is no evidence of the existence of God. We cannot presume that rights come from God because we don't know if God exists anymore than we can presume that the laws of physics exist because of the existence of God.

 

[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.

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

Actually, I believe that's called 'lobbying'

 

[mattskramer]

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?

You make an interesting point. I consider the physical reality of the situation called life in America. You might say that people have the right to life. Yet, people have killed other people. Some of those killers are caught, punished, and executed. Some of those killers have likely escaped punishment. So, someone saying that "people have a natural right to life" really don't seem to accept reality. It is the law that makes things real.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

You can purchase stock at anytime and vote for CEOs. Does that make walmart a part of the people and if voting is a requirment for making something a part of the people then are you aware that both Walmart corp and the government does't allow all the people to vote? The government doesn't allow people under the age of 18, criminals, illegals, etc, etc, etc, to vote. I suppose they are not of the people which is really sad because now I have to tell every seven year old that they are not americans and will be deported soon. They can return when they are 18.

 

[JBeukema]

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?

You confuse 'natural' and positive or legal rights.

Your ignorance of the issue prevents you from grasping the matter.

Ask a librarian to introductory materials.

 

[mattskramer]

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*?

Actually, I believe that's called 'lobbying'

Also, if Walmart is a publicly traded company, people might dump stock.

 

[Oddball]

Specious argument anyways.

If our rights to our lives and property aren't inherent to our being (i.e. natural), then it only follows that we only enjoy "rights" that some authority is willing to "allow" us.

Those aren't rights, they're privileges...There's a huge difference.

There is no evidence of the existence of God. We cannot presume that rights come from God because we don't know if God exists anymore than we can presume that the laws of physics exist because of the existence of God.

The concept of natural rights don't necessarily call for the existence of a Judeo-Christian God.

You and I have a life. So, it only follows that we naturally are within our *ahem* right to preserve that life --and by extension the products and property which spring from that life-- from outside aggression.

No deist "creator" needed.

 

[ihopehefails]

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?

You make an interesting point. I consider the physical reality of the situation called life in America. You might say that people have the right to life. Yet, people have killed other people. Some of those killers are caught, punished, and executed. Some of those killers have likely escaped punishment. So, someone saying that "people have a natural right to life" really don't seem to accept reality. It is the law that makes things real.

I never said that rights can't be violated by someone else but whatever violation occurs doesn't negate those rights. You say the law makes it real well people break the law as much as they violate someone's natural right to live. Does that make the legal protection invalid because some people choose to break the law?

 

[JBeukema]

I suppose they are not of the people which is really sad because now I have to tell every seven year old that they are not americans and will be deported soon. They can return when they are 18.

You're an idiot.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Uh...you're the one waving around Rousseau to justify your cut and pastiness.

 

[boedicca]

The concept of natural rights don't necessarily call for the existence of a Judeo-Christian God.

You and I have a life. So, it only follows that we naturally are within our *ahem* right to preserve that life --and by extension the products and property which spring from that life-- from outside aggression.

No deist "creator" needed.

Bingo.

The foundational value is one of "life". Each individual's right to life is sacrosanct. The system of government was designed to protect the individual's right to be left alone.

 

[JBeukema]

The concept of natural rights don't necessarily call for the existence of a Judeo-Christian God.

All who assert their existence ultimately end up claiming that they coe from their god.

You and I have a life. So, it only follows that we naturally are within our *ahem* right to preserve that life

Actually, it doesn't follow logically.

 

[ihopehefails]

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?

You confuse 'natural' and positive or legal rights.

Your ignorance of the issue prevents you from grasping the matter.

Ask a librarian to introductory materials.

There is no confusion between the two. I recognize the difference between the two where natural rights are rights bestowed upon us by birthright through whatever mechanism we choose to believe. Some believe those are God-given while others might believe they are ala-given but the point is is that they exist.

Legal law exist as well but that is something that is created by man and how can you trust any group of humans with your rights? 'liberals' like gay marriage but the polls show a majority of Americans oppose that. Are you going to say that a gay person doesn't have that right simply becuase a majority of Americans think they don't. You seem to have suggested that if it is not a part of the social agreement then they don't exist. Well those rights must exist somewhere if they can be thought of by anyone individual independent of the collective agreement.

 

[mattskramer]

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?

You make an interesting point. I consider the physical reality of the situation called life in America. You might say that people have the right to life. Yet, people have killed other people. Some of those killers are caught, punished, and executed. Some of those killers have likely escaped punishment. So, someone saying that "people have a natural right to life" really don't seem to accept reality. It is the law that makes things real.

I never said that rights can't be violated by someone else but whatever violation occurs doesn't negate those rights. You say the law makes it real well people break the law as much as they violate someone's natural right to live. Does that make the legal protection invalid because some people choose to break the law?

Let me explain it this way: Assume that natural rights exist. Assume that laws don't exist. Someone breaks the natural right of another and "gets caught". What happens? Nothing. Assume that laws exist. Assume that natural rights don't exist. Someone breaks the law and gets caught. What happens?

Natural rights might or might not exist. It just doesn't matter. It matters what laws exist.

 

[Toro]

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.

The American public may be based on the notion of God conferring rights, but that does not mean God exists.

I don't disagree that certain rights are critical in the development of a civilized society, but that does not mean they are natural. References to nature - of which the word "natural" is a derivative - are odd, given that nature is brutal and no rights exist.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

You make an interesting point. I consider the physical reality of the situation called life in America. You might say that people have the right to life. Yet, people have killed other people. Some of those killers are caught, punished, and executed. Some of those killers have likely escaped punishment. So, someone saying that "people have a natural right to life" really don't seem to accept reality. It is the law that makes things real.

The point is that unalienable rights are those which those who love liberty must understand, recognize, defend, and protect or there are no rights of any kind and no freedom that exists apart from the whims of others.

Of course people can violate unalienable, legal, civil, and constitutional rights of others. That is why we needed the social contract that the Constitution is and the laws, rules, and regulations that enforce it. And there must be consequences for violating the rights of others built into the enforcement process or it is of no benefit to defend and protect our rights.

The U.S. constitution was the very first among all nations that gave the rights to the people rather than the government, and prohibited the government from taking away those rights. The U.S. Government was never to be an agent to give permission to do this or that based on whatever whim comes up at the moment, but rather the guarantor of the peoples' rights so that they could govern themselves.

Every single good law at the federal level protects, secures, defends the unalienable rights of the people--such laws do not allow people to do economic, social, or civil violence to one another without consequence.

That which infringes on the rights of the people the Founders would say is bad law.

 

[boedicca]

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?

You confuse 'natural' and positive or legal rights.

Your ignorance of the issue prevents you from grasping the matter.

Ask a librarian to introductory materials.

There is no confusion between the two. I recognize the difference between the two where natural rights are rights bestowed upon us by birthright through whatever mechanism we choose to believe. Some believe those are God-given while others might believe they are ala-given but the point is is that they exist.

Legal law exist as well but that is something that is created by man and how can you trust any group of humans with your rights? 'liberals' like gay marriage but the polls show a majority of Americans oppose that. Are you going to say that a gay person doesn't have that right simply becuase a majority of Americans think they don't. You seem to have suggested that if it is not a part of the social agreement then they don't exist. Well those rights must exist somewhere if they can be thought of by anyone individual independent of the collective agreement.

What JB doesn't get is that if a Mob votes to violate an individual's rights, the rights still exist.

 

[Toro]

The concept of natural rights don't necessarily call for the existence of a Judeo-Christian God.

You and I have a life. So, it only follows that we naturally are within our *ahem* right to preserve that life --and by extension the products and property which spring from that life-- from outside aggression.

No deist "creator" needed.

As I said above, certain rights are critical in the establishment of a civilized society. However, there is no reason why those rights are "natural." They're just "right," or "the best."

There is nothing stopping mankind from brutalizing one another and taking what we need, rights be damned, as we have for most of our existence. Ideals of rights are codified rules from which the law derives, derived from a consensus of society.

 

[ihopehefails]

Specious argument anyways.

If our rights to our lives and property aren't inherent to our being (i.e. natural), then it only follows that we only enjoy "rights" that some authority is willing to "allow" us.

Those aren't rights, they're privileges...There's a huge difference.

There is no evidence of the existence of God. We cannot presume that rights come from God because we don't know if God exists anymore than we can presume that the laws of physics exist because of the existence of God.

What is the source of a person's rights then? Lets assume that they come from others for argument's sake. Do you trust human nature enough to allow that to happen? Not everyone is interested in protecting your freedom and even if they were why should they have a vote in what your rights are to begin with?

 

[JBeukema]

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.

The American public may be based on the notion of God conferring rights, but that does not mean God exists.

I don't disagree that certain rights are critical in the development of a civilized society, but that does not mean they are natural. References to nature - of which the word "natural" is a derivative - are odd, given that nature is brutal and no rights exist.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Toro again.

Regardless of whether 'natural rights' exist, people form nations and write laws to protect their own lives and the liberties they deem most important (such as keeping the product of their labour and being free from imprisonment without due justice). For all the flowery rhetoric of people like Dude , it is ultimately self-interest that leads people to task the government with protecting the individual and to protect those positive and legal rights necessary for a just and free society.