Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[Foxfyre]

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.

If you mean that people commit crimes--violate the rights of others--and get away with it, you would be right. That is precisely why the Founders, to a man, agreed that the Constitution would not work for other than a moral people. But so long as the large majority of the people accept the consequence of unalienable rights, the ones who violate those rights and get away with it will be fairly rare. The law is necessary within the social contract to define what consequences will be imposed for violating the rights of others.

It is important in the interest of preserving freedom that includes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to understand what an unalienable right is no matter where it came from. And then it is important to promote laws that promote those rights.

 

[JBeukema]

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?

Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences

The Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Consequences

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

true but this why govt authority exist to begin with or that is why it should exist.

 

[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.

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?

The source of a person's rights are the ideals that appeal to mankind.

Do I trust human nature? What made America? Humans did, not fish or trees or buffaloes.

Humans have a dark side. Americans have committed some atrocious crimes, be they as citizens or as a nation in times of war. But people also have a very optimistic, good side. It is those optimistic, good things about humans which created America.

 

[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.

true but this why govt authority exist to begin with or that is why it should exist.

I agree. And it is why we must live as a nation under the rule of law. The law is strengthened when the foundation of law derives from deeply held beliefs about rights, no matter where those rights come from.

 

[ihopehefails]

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?

Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences

The Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Consequences

Can you actually come up with some reason why I am wrong other than to link to other people's stuff? I'm beginning to think you are shooting blanks.

 

[boedicca]

I have a policy of not clicking on links when the poster does not have the courtesy to provide any commentary as to why they are relevant.

 

[ihopehefails]

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?

The source of a person's rights are the ideals that appeal to mankind.

Do I trust human nature? What made America? Humans did, not fish or trees or buffaloes.

Humans have a dark side. Americans have committed some atrocious crimes, be they as citizens or as a nation in times of war. But people also have a very optimistic, good side. It is those optimistic, good things about humans which created America.

OK, things are great when that trust is maintained but what happens when that trust is broken? Shouldn't we have some protection against the will of the majority in that case? This is the point of my op and that democracy is not the best tool for maintaining freedom.

I prefer the term limited democracy as we are only permitted on voting over a few issues.

For example, I find gay marriage morally repugnant but that is just my personal belief but so far, there is not one power granted to the federal government that says it can regulate the institution of marriage and because of that it forbids the majority, at the federal level, from stepping on what others might think is their rights.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Yes, there is a reason: Aggression.

The very idea of self-preservation presumes that someone or something may act as an aggressor against that end. Therefore, we are all within our right to protect and preserve ourselves. The only function for "society" (such as it may be) in this particular area, is to help provide a collective framework to accomplish that which would not be outside of one's right to do individually.

To use that form of collectivized preservationist aggression as the aggressor itself is the absolute antithesis of that just and clearly defined use of force.

 

[JBeukema]

The relevance is that he presents a logical fallacy. I linked to pages discussing the fallacy.

Nice evasion, though.

 

[The T]

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.

If you mean that people commit crimes--violate the rights of others--and get away with it, you would be right. That is precisely why the Founders, to a man, agreed that the Constitution would not work for other than a moral people. But so long as the large majority of the people accept the consequence of unalienable rights, the ones who violate those rights and get away with it will be fairly rare. The law is necessary within the social contract to define what consequences will be imposed for violating the rights of others.

It is important in the interest of preserving freedom that includes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to understand what an unalienable right is no matter where it came from. And then it is important to promote laws that promote those rights.

On the proverbial mark.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

true but this why govt authority exist to begin with or that is why it should exist.

I agree. And it is why we must live as a nation under the rule of law. The law is strengthened when the foundation of law derives from deeply held beliefs about rights, no matter where those rights come from.

Precisely. You don't have to agree with the origin of the rights--the Founders didn't all agree--but in the American experiment the people all agreed on what the rights were and accepted the definition of natural rights as the foundation for all. And they ratified a Constitution that would defend those rights and assign to government the sole purpose of securing, defending, and protecting those rights.

 

[ihopehefails]

The relevance is that he presents a logical fallacy. I linked to pages discussing the fallacy.

Nice evasion, though.

The only evasion occurring is you going off the original topic and whipping out with some links supposely saying I am wrong. If so, show it in something you write instead of just whipping out with some links.

 

[JBeukema]

OK, things are great when that trust is maintained but what happens when that trust is broken?

Ask Jefferson about his tree.

Shouldn't we have some protection against the will of the majority in that case?

Hence the aforementioned constitutional limits on the powers and authroities of the machinations of the State in order to create a more perfect State that better protects the individual.

This is the point of my op and that democracy is not the best tool for maintaining freedom.

Nobody's advocating direct democracy as a means of running the nation. The Republic is a representative democracy.

I prefer the term limited democracy as we are only permitted on voting over a few issues.

So you spit on democracy then name a democracy you want? You need to review your vocabulary.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Yes, there is a reason: Aggression.

The very idea of self-preservation presumes that someone or something may act as an aggressor against that end. Therefore, we are all within our right to protect and preserve ourselves. The only function for "society" (such as it may be) in this particular area, is to help provide a collective framework to accomplish that which would not be outside of one's right to do individually.

To use that form of collectivized preservationist aggression as the aggressor itself is the absolute antithesis of that just and clearly defined use of force.

The entire Declaration of Independence provided concepts and deeply held beliefs that would subsequently be affirmed and supported by the U.S. Constitution. And the core belief of all is that the American people would hold up certain rights as unalienable and would have the right to defend those rights against all individuals, groups, or governments who would presume to take any away. And that would include our own government.

 

[boedicca]

Foxfyre for the win.

 

[JBeukema]

true but this why govt authority exist to begin with or that is why it should exist.

I agree. And it is why we must live as a nation under the rule of law. The law is strengthened when the foundation of law derives from deeply held beliefs about rights, no matter where those rights come from.

Precisely. You don't have to agree with the origin of the rights--the Founders didn't all agree--but in the American experiment the people all agreed on what the rights were and accepted the definition of natural rights as the foundation for all. And they ratified a Constitution that would defend those rights and assign to government the sole purpose of securing, defending, and protecting those rights.

You don't have to agree that 'natural rights' exist at all. You merely have to come to an agreement regarding the basic liberties and [positive] rights must be protected. Even when dressed up in the rhetoric of 'natural rights', this is the process that occurs and it is motivated by self-interest.

 

[The T]

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?

The source of a person's rights are the ideals that appeal to mankind.

Do I trust human nature? What made America? Humans did, not fish or trees or buffaloes.

Humans have a dark side. Americans have committed some atrocious crimes, be they as citizens or as a nation in times of war. But people also have a very optimistic, good side. It is those optimistic, good things about humans which created America.

OK, things are great when that trust is maintained but what happens when that trust is broken? Shouldn't we have some protection against the will of the majority in that case? This is the point of my op and that democracy is not the best tool for maintaining freedom.

I prefer the term limited democracy as we are only permitted on voting over a few issues.

For example, I find gay marriage morally repugnant but that is just my personal belief but so far, there is not one power granted to the federal government that says it can regulate the institution of marriage and because of that it forbids the majority, at the federal level, from stepping on what others might think is their rights.

A certain word keeps popping up. I emboldened it. That word is why law is written. To maintain it precisely for the defense against 'darker side' of human nature, and the history that has shown it to rear up on occasion. Because it is abused...as we see from the present occupants of our own government.

And *I* personally wouldn't apply that word to ANY of them about now.

 

[ihopehefails]

OK, things are great when that trust is maintained but what happens when that trust is broken?

Ask Jefferson about his tree.

Shouldn't we have some protection against the will of the majority in that case?

Hence the aforementioned constitutional limits on the powers and authroities of the machinations of the State in order to create a more perfect State that better protects the individual.

This is the point of my op and that democracy is not the best tool for maintaining freedom.

Nobody's advocating direct democracy as a means of running the nation. The Republic is a representative democracy.

I prefer the term limited democracy as we are only permitted on voting over a few issues.

So you spit on democracy then name a democracy you want? You need to review your vocabulary.

I spit on a democratic government but a republic. A republic is a constitutional government that can be in any form as long as their is a constitution in it. A monarchy can be considered a republic if it has a constitution to define what its powers are. A democratic republic like ours is really a limited democracy where the people give certain power to that government which then get voted up or down about the use of those powers. Its not unlimited democracy where people can vote up or down on everything which would lead to mob rule.

 

[JBeukema]

the core belief of all is that the American people would hold up certain rights as unalienable

So they decided to declare them so?

and would have the right...

So they granted rights to those who came after them after they determined which rights to grant/recognize?

So much for your 'natural rights'- you've just described the social contract.