What Constitutes a "Right?"

I also question why the semantics here even matter.

Semantics don't matter unless the argument requires rigorous definitions. If we are to prove logically that natural rights exist (as the Church of Reason is demanding) we must agree on definitions and axioms and we must show that our axioms entail the conclusion 'natural rights exist'. Otherwise, we argue philosophically and the last man standing wins. The strategy in the Church of Reason is to attempt to maintain a feeling of intellectual superiority at all times hoping that putting others in a subordinate position will win the argument by default.

There is a huge difference between thinking that one is born with rights and that rights must be provided by a government. This is not a semantic difference.
 
I would also like to add that the more people there are that believe that we are completely at the mercy of our government, the more danger there is of a despot seizing power. This is a lesson that I would think we'd all have learned by now. Call me an optimist.
 
If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.

A: All men are equally independent ( A is false, btw, as a man born with congenital defect of his legs is no equally independent of the aid of others as is a man born with a unusually resilient form)

B:All men are regarded as entering into the social compact in equal status

1) B does not follow from A. One look at the numerous societies proves this-- although I sense Hume's guillotine being lifted again

2) If you claim B is dependent on A, then you are supporting inferior status for the less able- a direct contradiction to your stated objectives
Only a Retarded Person would Interpret or argue that Equal referred to talent, resource, or ability.

Then you have called your beloved Locke a retard.

None of the rest of your post demonstrated the validity if any of your past assertions
 
Let's stipulate (for the sake of the discussion, only) that there are no such things as "natural rights." That is, we agree to say (without having to actually buy into it) that "rights are a construct created by humankind -- a function of human society.


You just contradicted yourself. You claimed that "natural rights" exist and then said you agree to say that [positive rights exist].


No matter where they come from (God above, nature itself, or the mind of humankind in a societal setting), rights are cherished things. Some are unclear. Some are claimed where they don't really exist.

And you are the one to decide which "natural rights" do and do not exist?
 
There is a huge difference between thinking that one is born with rights and that rights must be provided by a government. This is not a semantic difference.


Not "by the government". By the social contract [that is, by what you claim and can convince through some means your fellows to recognize). The government emerges from the same system, as a means of enforcing the social compact- much as laws and legal systems arise from the same system to enforce (certain) ethical codes upon which the collective has agreed or has agreed to follow.
 
I would also like to add that the more people there are that believe that we are completely at the mercy of our government, the more danger there is of a despot seizing power. This is a lesson that I would think we'd all have learned by now. Call me an optimist.
All are at the mercy of the mob in the end.

The mob, in turn, is a composite of the member individuals, who surrender much of their own will to the collective.
 
We are Men First, We are Men Last. The Light of Any Society, is connected to Conscience. Each Individual Matters, Or None at All. I believe in the need of a standing army in a Society that stands on Principle, though few do. I believe War to be more towards the Last Resort, rather than the First, and that once started, not ended before It's proper time. There I depart from Thoreau. There are times when War is Necessary in an imperfect world, less We were All Slaves, to the cruelest among us.

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation on conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents on injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts — a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be,

"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;

Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O'er the grave where out hero was buried."

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. - Henry David Thoreau.

Henry David Thoreau: On the Duty of Civil Disobedience
 
I wonder why Setarcos always seems to be on the side that doesn't have the burden of proof.

Setarcos doesn't make moronic assertions. Whenever asked to demonstrate an assertion to be true, Setarcos can easily do so.

That is absolutely false and a lie of the damnabale variety...

You asserted AS FACT: That inalienable rights are alienable... you were chellenged to demonstrate such, to support the assertion and you FAILED!

This through posing that the taking of life somehow took a right to that life...

Which is tantamount to someone taking your car; demonstrating that you're not rightfully entitled to your car.


LOL...














DUMBASS!
 
In order to have a right, you must be able to defend that right. Thank You Second Amendment.
 
So what ya have here is the Humanists returning to distraction having had their collectivist asses handed to them; with unalienable individual Rights having been incontrovertibly proven; and Leftism in general; and Rights of the social contract wholly refuted.

Excellent work kids...
 
I don't think it is the case that rights come solely from "government". I think some of our American posters are possibly hindered - and I don't mean this in a spiteful or peevish manner, it's just an observation - by a reliance on the thinking of the Founding Fathers and their creation of important documents without regard to the influences on that thinking. Hume and Locke have been tossed around here but somewhat in an abstract fashion.

The American colonies were founded - amongst others I know - by the British. The British, rapacious Imperialists at the time, nice people now :), took over just about everything from everyone that was previously there. In so doing they imposed their culture, their laws (important bit) and their political will on the landmass of the eastern United States as we now know it. English law - I think this is right - was implemented in the colonies. English law is heavily influenced by common law. While contemporary US law tips its hat towards English common law in many ways that has been superseded by US law. But back to the colonies. English common law goes back to the times post-Roman settlement in Britain. As you would be aware when the Romans settled Britain they brought with them their sophisticated system of laws which they imposed on the Britons. Britain became Romanised for about three hundred years. When the Romans left Britain they left behind a Romanised Britain. And then the invasions started.

Angles, Saxons, Jutes (everyone forgets the Jutes) invaded in waves and took over various parts of Britain. They were primarily Germanic tribes and they brought with them their largely agricultural-based society and its rules. The rights of individuals were recognised in their laws, actually more like culturally embedded customs. Roman Law in Britain ceased to exist. The rights of citizens under Roman Law in Britain disappeared with the Roman influence. They were replaced with the rights of individuals recognised under the customs and customary law of the new settlers. English law is based on this customary law. I'm not going to give a history of law lecture (don't worry), but I would make a couple of points.

Roman Law created rights for citizens (and others) living under its influence. Rome was a republic (most of the time). Its actual origins are lost but the first evidence of Roman Law indicates it was a creation of Romans, not their gods. Anglo-Saxon customary law was oral and largely not written until after the initial waves of settlement when Christian missionaries brought writing (and Christianity) to the Anglo-Saxons. Anglo-Saxon customary law was developed by the communities that used it, based on the folk customs that had been produced by those simple societies. Rights were created and acknowledged by humans, not the gods of the Anglo-Saxons. When the Christian missionaries began converting Anglo-Saxon chiefs and also instructing in writing the laws began to be recorded in written rather than oral form. And the influence of the Church in the recording and development of these laws can be seen. It could be about then that the idea of God and laws began to meld. Certainly the Church has had a long history of involvement with the law (even today the robes worn by Judges in English courts are reminiscent of clerical garb).

My point is that the doctrines of natural rights and natural law come from the influence of the Church. But rights and law were known prior to that influence. Rights are produced by society, not by “government”, “government” is only the instrumentality to protect those rights and also the instrumentality that can create new rights to meet the demands of contemporary society. The concept of rights existed before monarchs or governments in societies composed of individuals who had to get on with each other to survive. Again I assert that the biological imperative in each individual and its expression in the relations between individuals is the originator of the concept of rights in humans.
 
So what ya have here is the Humanists returning to distraction having had their collectivist asses handed to them; with unalienable individual Rights having been incontrovertibly proven; and Leftism in general; and Rights of the social contract wholly refuted.

Excellent work kids...

Deluded as usual :lol:
 
So what ya have here is the Humanists returning to distraction having had their collectivist asses handed to them; with unalienable individual Rights having been incontrovertibly proven; and Leftism in general; and Rights of the social contract wholly refuted.

Excellent work kids...

Deluded as usual :lol:

Inalienable Rights come from God. Constructed Rights come from Government, through process and the consent of the Governed. Tyranny comes from Government.
 
15th post
I know I am late entering this thread but I have always defined a right or freedom something in relation to government power like something the government has no power over and if you read the tenth amendment it does not refer to people's or state's rights but powers that the state and people have in respect to the federal government. You would then say states/people have a "right" to do this because the power to execute that "right" is vested in them. The federal government also has powers that are specifically mentioned in the constitution where only it has the power to execute those rights such as declaring war in the name of the United States.

Its simply a division of powers between government and the people where government has certain powers to act on its "rights" granted to it in a constitution while the people that it governs have all other powers outside of that "agreement". The powers outside the agreement are where your rights are.
 
I know I am late entering this thread but I have always defined a right or freedom something in relation to government power like something the government has no power over and if you read the tenth amendment it does not refer to people's or state's rights but powers that the state and people have in respect to the federal government. You would then say states/people have a "right" to do this because the power to execute that "right" is vested in them. The federal government also has powers that are specifically mentioned in the constitution where only it has the power to execute those rights such as declaring war in the name of the United States.

Its simply a division of powers between government and the people where government has certain powers to act on its "rights" granted to it in a constitution while the people that it governs have all other powers outside of that "agreement". The powers outside the agreement are where your rights are.

This is exactly what the Constitution does. It grants and denies rights to a government. Notice the language of the first amendment ("shall not abridge"). What is there to "abridge" if the Constitution is defining peoples' rights. The rights defined by the first amendment must already exist if they are not abridged by the Constitution.
 
The premise that the cosmos is radically contingent, and needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, cannot be proven with certitude, but beyond a reasonable doubt.

Demonstrate that "the universe" cannot continue to exist without an outside agent and that such an outside agent is a conscious entity.

Also, define "the universe"

Nope, for that you need to read the book.
Once that is done, we can then consider the alternative assumption, that the cosmos have not always existed, but came to be out of nothing.

False dichotomy. It might have arisen from another thing. See the Nambla-Colt model ("quantum foam) and M-Theory (branes).

If you aren't going to read the book I've presented, I'm not reading anything you present.

Define "god". If "God" is merely whatever exists "before" our outside of that which we percieve, then the term is meaningless and to use it it to be dishonest, as the purpose is clearly to ascribe to the unknown quantity X whatever attributes one's preferred religion ascribes to deit(y/ies) withjout demonstrating the existence of any such entity.

Flawed conclusion from a faulty premise. You ask me to define 'God', and then proceed to construct your argument on your own definition. And you are calling me dishonest? Hypocrite.

That's not "finding a reason". That's seeking an argument fit to fit the desired assumption and it is intellectually dishonest. All his argument really does is argue that there might or might not be some unknown agent(s) which effect(ed) the formation or continued existence and working of the "universe"- while refusing to define even "the universe".

So you say. Appealing to your own authority is crass fallacy, at best.

, on the basis of our initial assumption of an everlasting cosmos, that conclusion cannot be proven with certitude, but can be beyond a reasonable doubt. (How to Think About God, pp149-150)

A "conclusion" in which nothing is defined, reached through unsubstantiated assumptions in which nothing is defined amounts to nothing at all except lever yet dishonest sophism.
. As you can no more prove His non-existence as I can His existence, with certitude, then at best it is a push within this argument.
You are a pinhead, aren't you? I provide you with the condensed version of the argument, and you are frtohing at the mouth over the lack of definition? :lol:

You can't argue that anything exists when you refuse to define it. Many gods have been disproven- Helios and El/YHWH among them. That's why deism sprang up- it is an attempt to define deity in such a (meaningless) way that the meaningless (non)-definition makes it impossible to test for the existence of such an entity.

So you can do so, but no one else can? :cuckoo:

You claim to want rationality, yet the arguments you have forward are both irrational and extremely dishonest in nature,

As are your counter-arguments and analysis.

Defend your position. God does not exist. Go.
 
Setarcos assumes that 'equal' means 'having equal means'. This seems to be a deliberate misinterpretation of Locke's vagueness.

Actually, Locke says so
I choose to interpret equal as meaning 'having equal rights'.
they have equal rights ==> they are equal==>they have equal rights?

Circular Reasoning


All you've done is go back to question 1: where do such "rights" come from, who can enumerate them, and how do you plan to demonstrate that they exist?

Begging the question

Define rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom