ihopehefails
VIP Member
- Oct 3, 2009
- 3,384
- 228
- 83
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #21
Did you actually pull out Rossieu?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
My argument is not specious. It is as real as the chair in which I sit. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a natural right – no matter what Thomas Jefferson said so eloquently. There are things that we (as individuals, societies, etc.), often based on general consensus or consent, consider to be rights.
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.
Did you really say that?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.
My argument is not specious. It is as real as the chair in which I sit. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a natural right no matter what Thomas Jefferson said so eloquently. There are things that we (as individuals, societies, etc.), often based on general consensus or consent, consider to be rights.
You seem to be suggesting that all rights are derived from the authority of others. Well if I was born on an island with no one else around, would I have any freedom or would I just sit their waiting for person number two to come along to decide what I could do?
If this person decided what I can and can't do would that not make him my master and not an equal?
If I need "general consensus or consent" from this mythical "society" then we're talking about privileges, not rights.
Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?
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?
You seem to be suggesting that all rights are derived from the authority of others. Well if I was born on an island with no one else around, would I have any freedom or would I just sit their waiting for person number two to come along to decide what I could do?
It would be an anarchist state in which you had total liberty. You would have no need for such rhetoric as 'natural rights' to argue any law or philosophy.
If this person decided what I can and can't do would that not make him my master and not an equal?
When you two met, you would soon establish the system. You might debate what to do, forming some form of democracy, or one might dominate the other, forming some form of tyranny.
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?
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.
If I need "general consensus or consent" from this mythical "society" then we're talking about privileges, not rights.
Society consents to your existence. Every member consents to your existence by allowing you to exist and not killing you.
Society exists to your liberty by not imprisoning you.
Society consents to your actions by taking no action against you form them when they when the members of society are aware of them.
When you commit an act to which a person or the People as a whole do not consent (such as rape or robbery), society takes action against you.
The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society
-Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Thanks, tovarich Stalin.If I need "general consensus or consent" from this mythical "society" then we're talking about privileges, not rights.
Society consents to your existence. Every member consents to your existence by allowing you to exist and not killing you.
Society exists to your liberty by not imprisoning you.
Society consents to your actions by taking no action against you form them when they when the members of society are aware of them.
When you commit an act to which a person or the People as a whole do not consent (such as rape or robbery), society takes action against you.
Yup!
See? It's a SOCIAL CONTRACT.
Any rights you have you have in RELATION to other people.
Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about you or me or anything else.
It grants you nothing.
It has no mind.
It is a series of events.
Now if you believe in GOD, then perhaps GOD grants you rights, but he is doing damned all to see that you continue to have them.
The only thing between you and chains, is your society.
Anarchy is the complete lack of a social contract that gives you (or not) any human rights, folks.
What rights did SLAVES have before society changed the rules?
ZERO.
Where was THEIR god granted inalienable rights in that case?
I cannot understand how anyone can believe in the concept that you are born with any right to anything.
It makes ZERO sense.
Veerrrry interesting.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (28 June 1712 – 2 July 1778) was a major Genevois philosopher, writer, and composer of the 18th-century Enlightenment. His political philosophy influenced the French Revolution and the development of modern political and educational thought....Rousseau was the most popular of the philosophers among members of the Jacobin Club.
Initially moderate, the club later became notorious for its implementation of the Reign of Terror. To this day, the terms Jacobin and Jacobinism are used as pejoratives for left-wing revolutionary politics.