What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

[
Firearms are counterproductive to tyranny... Leftism is tyranny... so... well you see the problem.

Losing elections and being tyrannized are 2 different thngs.

Steeling Liberty, is more than losing an election.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Firearms are counterproductive to tyranny... Leftism is tyranny... so... well you see the problem.

Losing elections and being tyrannized are 2 different thngs.

Steeling Liberty, is more than losing an election.

Ah yes, Liberty, the latest conservative fad.

 

[Intense]

Losing elections and being tyrannized are 2 different thngs.

Steeling Liberty, is more than losing an election.

Ah yes, Liberty, the latest conservative fad.

Latest as in 1689 or 1776?

 

[rubberhead]

Do you assert that the baby in the first does not deserve to live?

You're the only want asserting whether either :"deserves to live" or not

I made no such assertion. And here you are, whining about dishonesty.

Do you have to quote Setarcos? Keep trying to reason with him and you'll see why I ask.

 

[rubberhead]

Inalienable Rights come from God.

You've yet to demonstrate that

And you have yet to defend your position.

Or even clearly define it for that matter. I don't know why you're trying to reason with Setarcos/JBeukema.

 

[rubberhead]

Losing elections and being tyrannized are 2 different thngs.

Steeling Liberty, is more than losing an election.

Ah yes, Liberty, the latest conservative fad.

I hope that we can all agree that liberty is important regardless of our political orientation.

 

[Setarcos]

Do you assert that the baby in the first does not deserve to live?

You're the only want asserting whether either :"deserves to live" or not

I made no such assertion. And here you are, whining about dishonesty.

Yours was the first post to use the phrase 'deserve to live'

 

[Setarcos]

. He claims that all are equal in the "Natural State".

Turn on National Geographic or Google Alpha Males.


His picture of nature is simply not accurate in the least.

WHich does nothing to prove your point.

I have to prove nothing. Those who assert a thing exists bear the burden of proof. Locke's argument was deconstructed twice in this thread- once by showing the fallacy of Hume's guillotine and also by showing his premises to be incorrect- making anything inferred from them invalid.

 

[Setarcos]

Inalienable Rights come from God.

You've yet to demonstrate that

And you have yet to defend your position.

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Yours is a variation of example 3.


You must demonstrate the thing in question exists. To expect someone to prove the negative is logically fallacious and dishonest.

 

[JD_2B]

Rights are inherent to anyone living in respect to the following facts and worldwide "Fairness" understandings:

1- It is not fair to someone to be put on trial and be found guilty/ sentenced without an impartial jury of peers making that determination. A fair trial, is.. FAIR. This is a worldwide held belief that people should get a fair shake.

2- It is barbaric and animalistic to simply see someone who you think is guilty of a crime, regardless of the evidence, and subjectively end their life without them getting fair shake at defending themselves and having others to see that "oh maybe he did not do that- this might not be fair".

3- People just do not want to have to give up property to anyone, especially armed military men with rifles.. Its just not ******* fair to expect that of anyone.

4- In order to be really fair, people should be allowed to say their piece out loud when it comes to any given issue.

5- It is easier to have smaller groups of people decide on their own respective leaders, and have a group of leaders to help the community run smoothly, than it is to have everyone just saying their piece all the damned time, and risking not being heard. Therefore, we have a congress and house of representatives, who also answer to another authority higher than them, who is the person who the community also gets a fair enough chance at choosing. This improves our quality of life, and gives leaders of other nations an individual to turn to when the shit hits the fan, instead of having to run around our large community trying to find out whos in charge of what. This works and is very fair.

6- That individual should not have some kind of indefinite term, so that he or she can get all high and mighty and think they have absolute power, so they can only be the leader for a little while at a time, and only two times.. no more.

7- Since we are subjected to all sorts of violence, and always seem to have been, whether it is from other people or animals, or lunatics in government who think they can take over everything- we think it is fair that we should have guns with us- this keeps the government in check, and everyone the hell else, too.

8- Just because someone suspicious was held in a cell for 3 days, and confessed and said they did it, doesnt mean they did- because it would not be fair to be held for that long- any normal sane person would say the same. We respect that notion fully..

blah blah blah...

Rights arent a gift from any one, or any diety.. they are just an understanding of overall fairness, and keeping the peace, without being a bunch of asshat barbarians.. =)

'scuse my french, by the way.

 

[Setarcos]

The desire for fairness usually only exists in those who have less.

I find it interesting how oft 'rights' has been redefined in this thread by those seeking to establish something called 'rights'

 

[rubberhead]

Rights are inherent to anyone living in respect to the following facts and worldwide "Fairness" understandings:

1- It is not fair to someone to be put on trial and be found guilty/ sentenced without an impartial jury of peers making that determination. A fair trial, is.. FAIR. This is a worldwide held belief that people should get a fair shake.

2- It is barbaric and animalistic to simply see someone who you think is guilty of a crime, regardless of the evidence, and subjectively end their life without them getting fair shake at defending themselves and having others to see that "oh maybe he did not do that- this might not be fair".

3- People just do not want to have to give up property to anyone, especially armed military men with rifles.. Its just not ******* fair to expect that of anyone.

4- In order to be really fair, people should be allowed to say their piece out loud when it comes to any given issue.

5- It is easier to have smaller groups of people decide on their own respective leaders, and have a group of leaders to help the community run smoothly, than it is to have everyone just saying their piece all the damned time, and risking not being heard. Therefore, we have a congress and house of representatives, who also answer to another authority higher than them, who is the person who the community also gets a fair enough chance at choosing. This improves our quality of life, and gives leaders of other nations an individual to turn to when the shit hits the fan, instead of having to run around our large community trying to find out whos in charge of what. This works and is very fair.

6- That individual should not have some kind of indefinite term, so that he or she can get all high and mighty and think they have absolute power, so they can only be the leader for a little while at a time, and only two times.. no more.

7- Since we are subjected to all sorts of violence, and always seem to have been, whether it is from other people or animals, or lunatics in government who think they can take over everything- we think it is fair that we should have guns with us- this keeps the government in check, and everyone the hell else, too.

8- Just because someone suspicious was held in a cell for 3 days, and confessed and said they did it, doesnt mean they did- because it would not be fair to be held for that long- any normal sane person would say the same. We respect that notion fully..

blah blah blah...

Rights arent a gift from any one, or any diety.. they are just an understanding of overall fairness, and keeping the peace, without being a bunch of asshat barbarians.. =)

'scuse my french, by the way.

Wow, there's a lot of extra stuff in there I think.

Here's my (much shorter) list:

1. Everyone wants to have maximal control of their own destiny. Therefore a just society is a free society, to the extent that people aren't robbing others of their freedom.

2. No one can justify requiring (by force) that a group or individual is held above others or, in other words, are/is entitled to rights to which other groups or individuals are not entitled.

3. If people are free, then they must be allowed to retain the fruits of their labor. If an individual's belongings can be rightfully confiscated, then that individual is being robbed of their time (they must have spent time producing or cultivating the item).

These three principles apply to any State, including the State of Nature. People may not follow them in the State of Nature as they often do not follow them now. In fact, not following them has become institutionalized in the name of the "public interest" in many places. However, we can still apply these principles and recognize where they apply and use them to deem an interaction "right" or "wrong" by our interpretation of these principles. We shouldn't be arguing whether these principles exist, we should be arguing over the interpretation of them. If someone wants to argue that one of these principles is unjust, I would love to see that argument. I doubt that it would have any merit, but I would read it and fully consider it nonetheless. That is, unless Setarcos wrote it, cuz he's a jackass and he's on my ignore list.

 

[Setarcos]

1. Everyone wants to have maximal control of their own destiny.

You know the desire of every person?

Therefore a just society is a free society

That does not follow logically. It's just another sloppy Guillotine where the attempt to derive the desired aught from the is can't be decoded into any rational argument,

Syllogism, please.

to the extent that people aren't robbing others of their freedom.

Define:robbing others of their freedom.

Is taking fruit from a tree near where you live robbing you f your freedom to enoy the fruits of your labor (assuming you tend the tree)? is stopping me robbing my of my freedom to forage?

Is killing you robbing you of a freedom to continue your existence? Does not stopping me rob me of my freedom to act?

If you do not want to rob any others of their freedom, then you can have no law, ethics, or codes of conduct. Nobody is to stop anybody from doing anything. Your requirements are satisfied only in a pure anarchic state in which no two individuals really interact.

2. No one can justify requiring (by force) that a group or individual is held above others or, in other words, are/is entitled to rights to which other groups or individuals are not entitled.

Why would they need to justify it?? To whom must they justify themselves? Is not a pregnant woman of more value than an old man if the population must choose who gets on the lifeboats and wishes to continue their people's existence? If they are going into battle, on the other hand, and the old m,an is a master tactician, is not a single pregnant woman who has wandered from the village less important that the man who can ensure victory and thereby protect the entire village?

3. If people are free, then they must be allowed to retain the fruits of their labor. If an individual's belongings can be rightfully confiscated, then that individual is being robbed of their time (they must have spent time producing or cultivating the item).

And another of his right to eat what is available to him. See above. Your definition of 'free' makes nearly all known forms of civilization impossible.

These three principles apply to any State, including the State of Nature.

How can you impose rules upon anarchy?

If someone wants to argue that one of these principles is unjust, I would love to see that argument.

Define:just

Demonstrate that they are just- that saving a single pregnant woman is just to the hundreds whose lives might be lost because saving the women gives away the army's position.

You can keep attempting absolute prescriptive ethics, but you'll have a very hard time of it.

That is, unless Setarcos wrote it, cuz he's a jackass and he's on my ignore list.

In other words,the poster s unable to refute, so (s)he hides away and refuses to address. Refusing to een attempt a rebuttal is a concession that one cannot. Therefore, the discussion is over and rubberhead admits to being wrong.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Relying on mythical assumptions to support an argument is pretty weak. It reminds me of the alleged proofs of god. Empty words, even when uttered by brilliant minds such as Aquinas, they're simply assumptions.

Yeah, your mythical assumptions are pretty weak... But Left-think has to be founded on something, so empty words and vaccuous cliches work as well as any thing else.

 

[Intense]

Steeling Liberty, is more than losing an election.

Ah yes, Liberty, the latest conservative fad.

I hope that we can all agree that liberty is important regardless of our political orientation.

Thats the Point of the Debate. To the Statist Liberty does not exist without State Consent.
To the Declarationist Liberty is From an Authority Higher than Government, recognized and protected by the individual, the society, and the government.

The Statist is Jealous of having to answer to anything outside of the state. The state does not like to compete or have to Justify Itself, yet wants everything to be under It's Control. The Statist sees the State as above the Law. Exempt.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Rights are inherent to anyone living in respect to the following facts and worldwide "Fairness" understandings:

1- It is not fair to someone to be put on trial and be found guilty/ sentenced without an impartial jury of peers making that determination. A fair trial, is.. FAIR. This is a worldwide held belief that people should get a fair shake.

2- It is barbaric and animalistic to simply see someone who you think is guilty of a crime, regardless of the evidence, and subjectively end their life without them getting fair shake at defending themselves and having others to see that "oh maybe he did not do that- this might not be fair".

3- People just do not want to have to give up property to anyone, especially armed military men with rifles.. Its just not ******* fair to expect that of anyone.

4- In order to be really fair, people should be allowed to say their piece out loud when it comes to any given issue.

5- It is easier to have smaller groups of people decide on their own respective leaders, and have a group of leaders to help the community run smoothly, than it is to have everyone just saying their piece all the damned time, and risking not being heard. Therefore, we have a congress and house of representatives, who also answer to another authority higher than them, who is the person who the community also gets a fair enough chance at choosing. This improves our quality of life, and gives leaders of other nations an individual to turn to when the shit hits the fan, instead of having to run around our large community trying to find out whos in charge of what. This works and is very fair.

6- That individual should not have some kind of indefinite term, so that he or she can get all high and mighty and think they have absolute power, so they can only be the leader for a little while at a time, and only two times.. no more.

7- Since we are subjected to all sorts of violence, and always seem to have been, whether it is from other people or animals, or lunatics in government who think they can take over everything- we think it is fair that we should have guns with us- this keeps the government in check, and everyone the hell else, too.

8- Just because someone suspicious was held in a cell for 3 days, and confessed and said they did it, doesnt mean they did- because it would not be fair to be held for that long- any normal sane person would say the same. We respect that notion fully..

blah blah blah...

Rights arent a gift from any one, or any diety.. they are just an understanding of overall fairness, and keeping the peace, without being a bunch of asshat barbarians.. =)

'scuse my french, by the way.

And THAT kids is a beautiful example of how the Left has always confused fairness with the freedom bearing endowment of unalienable, equitable rights.

The fact is that what is fair is a subjective notion, born by the holder of such notions; as is 'need', the other Leftist cliche.

There is no end to legislating fairness... as there is no end to legislating to accomodate need. And that is why culture's which rest upon those notions will inevitably fail and fall into tyrannical prisons... as every action of one man will be construed as being unfair to another man, by someone; every item of property aquired by one man will be seen as being needed by another... until there is no sign of fairness to be found and the culture represents a sea of perpetual need.

The immutable principles of nature, on which America rests leaves fairness and need to the responsibilities inherent in the intrinsic rights of the species... born to the individuals by their sacred duty to not exercise their rights to the detriment of another's means to exercise their rights; thus leaving each individual rightfully entitled to fairly pursue their needs; and through that, a thriving economy is created and sustained, by which all needs are fairly met and sustained.

Now enjoy as the idiots return to list the litanny of unfairness, as THEY SEE IT... and the endless NEEDS which THEY FEEL are not being met... wholly ignorant that the needs to whicht hey speak are the responsibility of those bearing them... and the lack of fairness which they lament is purely a function of those individuals failing to exercise their right and to bear the responsibility intrinsic to those rights.

Funny stuff... Especially considering how SERIOUS they are when they say such stupid things.

 

[Intense]

Rights are inherent to anyone living in respect to the following facts and worldwide "Fairness" understandings:

1- It is not fair to someone to be put on trial and be found guilty/ sentenced without an impartial jury of peers making that determination. A fair trial, is.. FAIR. This is a worldwide held belief that people should get a fair shake.

2- It is barbaric and animalistic to simply see someone who you think is guilty of a crime, regardless of the evidence, and subjectively end their life without them getting fair shake at defending themselves and having others to see that "oh maybe he did not do that- this might not be fair".

3- People just do not want to have to give up property to anyone, especially armed military men with rifles.. Its just not ******* fair to expect that of anyone.

4- In order to be really fair, people should be allowed to say their piece out loud when it comes to any given issue.

5- It is easier to have smaller groups of people decide on their own respective leaders, and have a group of leaders to help the community run smoothly, than it is to have everyone just saying their piece all the damned time, and risking not being heard. Therefore, we have a congress and house of representatives, who also answer to another authority higher than them, who is the person who the community also gets a fair enough chance at choosing. This improves our quality of life, and gives leaders of other nations an individual to turn to when the shit hits the fan, instead of having to run around our large community trying to find out whos in charge of what. This works and is very fair.

6- That individual should not have some kind of indefinite term, so that he or she can get all high and mighty and think they have absolute power, so they can only be the leader for a little while at a time, and only two times.. no more.

7- Since we are subjected to all sorts of violence, and always seem to have been, whether it is from other people or animals, or lunatics in government who think they can take over everything- we think it is fair that we should have guns with us- this keeps the government in check, and everyone the hell else, too.

8- Just because someone suspicious was held in a cell for 3 days, and confessed and said they did it, doesnt mean they did- because it would not be fair to be held for that long- any normal sane person would say the same. We respect that notion fully..

blah blah blah...

Rights arent a gift from any one, or any diety.. they are just an understanding of overall fairness, and keeping the peace, without being a bunch of asshat barbarians.. =)

'scuse my french, by the way.

There are Natural Rights and Constructed Rights. Recognizing either is no guarantee. Circumstance would dictate what is in deed possible, not preconceived expectation. There is much disappointment in this life.

 

[Intense]

Rights are inherent to anyone living in respect to the following facts and worldwide "Fairness" understandings:

1- It is not fair to someone to be put on trial and be found guilty/ sentenced without an impartial jury of peers making that determination. A fair trial, is.. FAIR. This is a worldwide held belief that people should get a fair shake.

2- It is barbaric and animalistic to simply see someone who you think is guilty of a crime, regardless of the evidence, and subjectively end their life without them getting fair shake at defending themselves and having others to see that "oh maybe he did not do that- this might not be fair".

3- People just do not want to have to give up property to anyone, especially armed military men with rifles.. Its just not ******* fair to expect that of anyone.

4- In order to be really fair, people should be allowed to say their piece out loud when it comes to any given issue.

5- It is easier to have smaller groups of people decide on their own respective leaders, and have a group of leaders to help the community run smoothly, than it is to have everyone just saying their piece all the damned time, and risking not being heard. Therefore, we have a congress and house of representatives, who also answer to another authority higher than them, who is the person who the community also gets a fair enough chance at choosing. This improves our quality of life, and gives leaders of other nations an individual to turn to when the shit hits the fan, instead of having to run around our large community trying to find out whos in charge of what. This works and is very fair.

6- That individual should not have some kind of indefinite term, so that he or she can get all high and mighty and think they have absolute power, so they can only be the leader for a little while at a time, and only two times.. no more.

7- Since we are subjected to all sorts of violence, and always seem to have been, whether it is from other people or animals, or lunatics in government who think they can take over everything- we think it is fair that we should have guns with us- this keeps the government in check, and everyone the hell else, too.

8- Just because someone suspicious was held in a cell for 3 days, and confessed and said they did it, doesnt mean they did- because it would not be fair to be held for that long- any normal sane person would say the same. We respect that notion fully..

blah blah blah...

Rights arent a gift from any one, or any diety.. they are just an understanding of overall fairness, and keeping the peace, without being a bunch of asshat barbarians.. =)

'scuse my french, by the way.

Wow, there's a lot of extra stuff in there I think.

Here's my (much shorter) list:

1. Everyone wants to have maximal control of their own destiny. Therefore a just society is a free society, to the extent that people aren't robbing others of their freedom.

2. No one can justify requiring (by force) that a group or individual is held above others or, in other words, are/is entitled to rights to which other groups or individuals are not entitled.

3. If people are free, then they must be allowed to retain the fruits of their labor. If an individual's belongings can be rightfully confiscated, then that individual is being robbed of their time (they must have spent time producing or cultivating the item).

These three principles apply to any State, including the State of Nature. People may not follow them in the State of Nature as they often do not follow them now. In fact, not following them has become institutionalized in the name of the "public interest" in many places. However, we can still apply these principles and recognize where they apply and use them to deem an interaction "right" or "wrong" by our interpretation of these principles. We shouldn't be arguing whether these principles exist, we should be arguing over the interpretation of them. If someone wants to argue that one of these principles is unjust, I would love to see that argument. I doubt that it would have any merit, but I would read it and fully consider it nonetheless. That is, unless Setarcos wrote it, cuz he's a jackass and he's on my ignore list.

Define Destiny.... Fail.... Only Kidding

Three nice thoughts. Here is where things can get weird though.

Free Health care.
Free Prescriptions.
Free Dental.
Free Cable.
Free Mass Transit.
Free Utilities.
Free Gasoline.
Free Wireless.
Free Phones.
Free Hotel Stays.

The one Reality these Fantasies share with the word free removed, they are all marketable private property. They have Value. They have cost. Someone has to pay. Someone has to provide the labor.

 

[rubberhead]

Rights are inherent to anyone living in respect to the following facts and worldwide "Fairness" understandings:

1- It is not fair to someone to be put on trial and be found guilty/ sentenced without an impartial jury of peers making that determination. A fair trial, is.. FAIR. This is a worldwide held belief that people should get a fair shake.

2- It is barbaric and animalistic to simply see someone who you think is guilty of a crime, regardless of the evidence, and subjectively end their life without them getting fair shake at defending themselves and having others to see that "oh maybe he did not do that- this might not be fair".

3- People just do not want to have to give up property to anyone, especially armed military men with rifles.. Its just not ******* fair to expect that of anyone.

4- In order to be really fair, people should be allowed to say their piece out loud when it comes to any given issue.

5- It is easier to have smaller groups of people decide on their own respective leaders, and have a group of leaders to help the community run smoothly, than it is to have everyone just saying their piece all the damned time, and risking not being heard. Therefore, we have a congress and house of representatives, who also answer to another authority higher than them, who is the person who the community also gets a fair enough chance at choosing. This improves our quality of life, and gives leaders of other nations an individual to turn to when the shit hits the fan, instead of having to run around our large community trying to find out whos in charge of what. This works and is very fair.

6- That individual should not have some kind of indefinite term, so that he or she can get all high and mighty and think they have absolute power, so they can only be the leader for a little while at a time, and only two times.. no more.

7- Since we are subjected to all sorts of violence, and always seem to have been, whether it is from other people or animals, or lunatics in government who think they can take over everything- we think it is fair that we should have guns with us- this keeps the government in check, and everyone the hell else, too.

8- Just because someone suspicious was held in a cell for 3 days, and confessed and said they did it, doesnt mean they did- because it would not be fair to be held for that long- any normal sane person would say the same. We respect that notion fully..

blah blah blah...

Rights arent a gift from any one, or any diety.. they are just an understanding of overall fairness, and keeping the peace, without being a bunch of asshat barbarians.. =)

'scuse my french, by the way.

Wow, there's a lot of extra stuff in there I think.

Here's my (much shorter) list:

1. Everyone wants to have maximal control of their own destiny. Therefore a just society is a free society, to the extent that people aren't robbing others of their freedom.

2. No one can justify requiring (by force) that a group or individual is held above others or, in other words, are/is entitled to rights to which other groups or individuals are not entitled.

3. If people are free, then they must be allowed to retain the fruits of their labor. If an individual's belongings can be rightfully confiscated, then that individual is being robbed of their time (they must have spent time producing or cultivating the item).

These three principles apply to any State, including the State of Nature. People may not follow them in the State of Nature as they often do not follow them now. In fact, not following them has become institutionalized in the name of the "public interest" in many places. However, we can still apply these principles and recognize where they apply and use them to deem an interaction "right" or "wrong" by our interpretation of these principles. We shouldn't be arguing whether these principles exist, we should be arguing over the interpretation of them. If someone wants to argue that one of these principles is unjust, I would love to see that argument. I doubt that it would have any merit, but I would read it and fully consider it nonetheless. That is, unless Setarcos wrote it, cuz he's a jackass and he's on my ignore list.

Define Destiny.... Fail.... Only Kidding

Three nice thoughts. Here is where things can get weird though.

Free Health care.
Free Prescriptions.
Free Dental.
Free Cable.
Free Mass Transit.
Free Utilities.
Free Gasoline.
Free Wireless.
Free Phones.
Free Hotel Stays.

The one Reality these Fantasies share with the word free removed, they are all marketable private property. They have Value. They have cost. Someone has to pay. Someone has to provide the labor.

When I say "free people", I don't mean slaves that you don't have to pay for. Nothing is free in the sense that it has zero cost. This is precisely because people are free, and useful things generally don't come into existence without the effort of people. The third principle entitles each person to what they produce.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

You're the only want asserting whether either :"deserves to live" or not

I made no such assertion. And here you are, whining about dishonesty.

Yours was the first post to use the phrase 'deserve to live'

And a very simple reading will indicate that the use was not done as a statement of my position, but a statement of yours.

As you won't put forth a position, other than "God does not exist", I took the liberty of doing it for you.

An adolescent beyond an eighth grade reading level would have known that.