Rights - god given? inalienable? self-evident? natural? WRONG

It was moral to some who were doing it.
But not moral to the vast majority who heard about it or saw it. Then might stepped in and corrected what the majority saw as immoral. Might = right.
What I'm saying is the entirety of humanity does not have the same exact morals. Not whether you or I think something is or is not moral. And in many cases, might is needed to change the morals of another group.

 

Man, the founders, conjured up those natural rights as sort of a rally the troops to have something to fight for.

As far as the natives, they had their lifestyles. Land was not owned, it was occupied. We set up rules and laws that did not fit their Native Life. And they fought back. We changed their world. Might came in and the winner set the rules/laws/rights/morals.
If there is such a thing as natural rights, then they had natural rights. What values they may have varies from society to society.

And I like how you keep using guns as a means to enforce natural rights. Doesn't sound very natural to me. Sounds like Might = Right. And totally man made.

So, yet again, you say the exact same thing I and others have said, but you refuse to see it.
Might = right. And the only basic right anyone has is to defend their life and in cases you brought up, their lifestyle.

 

God's law, natural law, and any other form of argument that assumes folks have rights that innately exist are all hogwash. Rights are an invention of humanity and therefore it is only humanity that can create them. The existence of a right is also only as valid as the ability to enforce them. A person can assume they have the right to do something based on whatever innately existing thing they want to cite, but if there is no governing entity that enforces that right, it's existence is meaningless. Only through the codification and enforcement of human created laws do rights actually come into existence. Anything short of that are just words and thoughts and anybody can have those on any topic at any time for any reason.

If the Founding Fathers had lived in a more enlightened time period, they would have never committed the folly of talking about creators, natural laws, and any of the other metaphysical nonsense they spoke of. The rights they spoke of didn't exist until they were created and enforced by mankind. Any even then, they weren't extended to ALL of mankind, just those whom the law could be used to protect. Natural laws, God's laws, innate laws, none of that mattered in the slightest if you were an African slave which means that even the people who were yammering about those laws didn't actually believe they existed beyond their use as a tool of control.

 

LOL. That is man made contractual agreement. Nothing natural about it. No nature involved anywhere. No creator giving it. Purely a man made construct.

 

taxes are consensual, you are in this Country because you enjoy it's benefits, use the roads and highways, expect national defense/security and no-one is forcing you to stay here. You can, if you want, denounce citizenship and seek life in a state of nature somewhere, but you won't will you? so, even though you think you haven't consented, you have.

when did i say taxes for 'anything and everything'? no, it would be for national defense, a a safety net for those who can't survive on their own. The Country was setup to suppress certain rights and agree to a set of rights which are in the best interest for all of society. Can you walk around naked? why not? it's a negative, natural right isn't it? well, society has agreed to suppress this natural right so we have agreed to a set of rights and laws that are in our best interests.

Hobbes would not agree, he believed men had no duty to respect each other's rights and so society had to take away some rights and agree to a list.

but i don't have to agree with this, i can take your chair if i want. The question is, why would i want to take your stupid little chair? This is a bad example. Let's say in state of nature, i can't find food but run into you and see you have a hunt, which you are taking back to your family. Will i respect your property? probably not, we will fight for it.

to protect rights agreed by society and take away liberties as-well. Can you walk into your local starbucks naked? this is a natural right isn't it? so, no, government isn't protecting all natural rights, just man made rights agreed to by society. Government was also set up to fund itself, via taxes, we consented to this positive right if you want to call it that.

if you are trying to equate this to taxes for healthcare, bad analogy. A more comparable analogy is for the 3 of us to agree to co-exist by providing for each other; i.e., - defend each other from others, provide food/water for each other etc.. We all chip in for the greater good of the 3 of us and in effect have consented to a list of positive/negative rights. If you don't like the agreement, you are free to leave but you stay and therefore have agreed.

bad definition. I can go to starbucks and buy coffee, this is a negative right.

everyone that is a US citizens implicitly agrees to paying taxes and reaping the benefits of this Country, including you. You are not forced to stay here, if you were forced to stay, then i would agree it's a violation of rights.

what difference does it make if a state or federal government imprisons someone? states charge taxes too.

and we have consented to it, as it's for the greater good of society. Every citizen has given their implicit consent. YOU remain in this Country, why? because you reap the benefits provided to you by the federal government (roads and highways, security, welfare when needed to survive).

okay but in short, what are you arguing as it relates to providing a safety-net or welfare state? What you think is not what has been agreed to by society and by remaining a US citizen, you have implicitly agreed to these duties.

whether you bring positive, negative rights into this debate, i still haven't gotten a very strong argument as to why you feel it is a violation of your rights (property) to have to pay taxes to provide a safety-net. Society has agreed to it because we feel we have a duty to others and it provides for security. I myself am doing quite well in my job but i always have some fear that i can get something like cancer, lose my job, be at the mercy of the blood sucking healthcare system and go bankrupt because of being f'd over for having a pre-existing condition. THIS, IS NOT SECURITY..IT'S SCARY. So i would happily pay more in taxes in order to not only do what's good for others (duty to others = morality) but also do what's good for me - i'm paying taxes to ensure my security too. For someone to tell me 'this is a violation of your property rights', i respond 'why, i'm paying for my own security too and i consent to contributing to well being of society'. If you disagree with this line of thought, and our government goes the single payer route, you can denounce your citizenship, seek life elsewhere. If you stay in this Country, you have consented to this duty/positive right too and cannot claim your rights are violated. This is a key thing every US citizen must understand - you are not forced to stay here, you are free to leave if you disagree with the society you want to be a part of, by remaining in this society, you have given your consent to certain duties/rights and cannot claim your rights are been violated.

 

i don't even remember you.

 

Still can't argue the point made I see...

 

Rights are a concept, and concepts only exist in human minds. Being able to think of abstract concepts was an evolutionary adaptation for the creation of human civilization. The real question is: what rights should we have?

 

Natural rights explained:

Your body is a thing.
Things can be owned.
Only you have the right to own your body.

This is self evident, thus axiomatic. Anyone who believes otherwise believes in slavery.

All other natural rights are derived from this simple concept.

 

Unresponsive.

 

I believe in slavery. I don't agree with it and think it's immoral, but I believe in it. For it has existed through human history. I bet it still exists today. Especially if some creator is involved and said slavery is ok.

 

if you re-post your point, i'll be happy to take a shot at it but i'm not going to go back and find it.

so i can walk to the local starbucks naked? or sit on a bench on a public park and jerk off? what about right to sell body for sex? or right to inject heroine in my body? i guess you would agree these are natural rights? There are no natural rights that pre-existed in nature, it's what we, as a society agree to.

the biggest mistake our founding fathers made was alluding to nonsense like unalienable rights or natural rights because they didn't have people walking around naked, jerking off in public in mind, did they?

what they should've stated is simply 'rights, determined by society, for greater good of all people'

because of the nonsense of alluding to natural or god, they have forever cursed constitution with vagueness and nonsense.

 

You do *NOT* have the right to do anything that will introduce the right of others for self-defense into the relationship equation.

Nor did I say you have a natural right to do anything and everything. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

And the fact that there is no specific list *IS* a good thing, not a bad thing. It allows mankind to identify natural rights instead of being constrained to a specific list.

What is your concern with having a specific list? That is what I would expect from a budding dictator. If you want a general list look to the Dec of Independence and the Constitution, esp the 9th and 10th Amendments.

 

SAYS WHO?

work on your reading comprehension, it's what i believe in.

if natural rights exist, there must be a specific list, otherwise, the concept is meaningless. Let me ask you, why don't you have the right to walk around naked? jerk off in a public park in front of everyone? sell your body for sex? inject heroine in your system? Are these not natural rights? why not?

and why would i go to declaration of independence for the list? all this list is a list made up by men, men that had no problem with slavery back then. This is my point, there are is no universal list of 'natural' rights, i believe in right to everything and anything with one goal in mind - self-preservation. If you and I have to compete for a resource to survive, i have the right to kill you!

 

It better be *YOU!*. When you do something to bring someone else's right to self-defense into play there is a liklihood you will wind up dead from that self-defense invoked by the other person!

You need to work on your grammar! You said: "i think we all agree there are natural rights but natural rights are to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING."

"we all agree" is WRONG. That includes *me* in your group that believe natural rights are to do anything and everything. That *is* putting words in my mouth because I don't believe that at all!

Amendment 9 to the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Founding Fathers did *NOT* see fit to include a specific list because they did not want to place any artificial limitations on our natural rights.

So there does *NOT* need to be a specific list. All you want is to play a petty dictator, a petty dictator who can tell everyone what their natural rights are.

Many of the Founding Fathers had a problem with slavery. What makes you think they didn't?

And you are quoting the beliefs of the Marxist Democrats, the entire world is a zero sum game. That's right out of Marx and Engels. The world is *NOT* a zero sum game. What resource do you think there is that men have to fight over in order to have sole possession of it?

 

no, i disagree, i have the right to threaten you, i don't care that it will invoke self defense, i'll take the risk.

Clearly, what's in bold, is what we all agree to, then by using 'but' i'm transitioning to what I believe in. Now you can pick on the grammar but many would've known exactly what i meant. If you want to play grammar cop, have at it, i'm clarifying what i meant.

many here do provide me with a list, where some rights are included, some not. You yourself do it when you tell me i have no right to threaten you, to which i asked, why not? telling me it would invoke self defense is simply not a good answer. So here goes the debate, what is a natural right if i believe i have the right to do anything and everything but you tell me no, somethings are not natural rights. You are narrowing the list for me, whether you accept it or not. IMO, there is nothing to narrow or expand, natural rights are rights to do anything and everything in a state of nature. When we agree to a society, we agree to relinquish some liberties and then narrow the list to what promotes a peaceful co-existence.

btw, I asked you if you thought we had the right to jerk off in public, walk around naked, take drugs, you didn't answer, fine. I was curious as to your stance on natural rights because these things are for sure natural rights, no?

hmm.. why wasn't slavery abolished when constitution was ratified and government formed?

there are limited resources, this is a fact. I'm not a democrat or leftist, i supported Trump actually. Does this shock you? but i'm used to this, you lefties or righties can only accuse others of being extremists as part of your ad hominem attacks.

 

No, you didn't.

btw: saying a equals a is circular logic.

I can tell you don't quite get logic, so....

 

Imo, A=A and a=a are natural rights, but A=a is not necessarily a natural right

 

about your favorite subject - negative rights.

would you agree we have the right to walk naked in public? jerk off in a public park as others watch, have sex in public, take drugs, sell our body for sex? All these are negative rights. Why are these liberties taken away if we should be able to freely exercise all negative rights, all these are 'natural'.

 

Other's also have the right to end your threat. As Robert Heinlein wrote - an armed society is a polite society.

The conjunction "but" is *not* a transition from inclusive to exclusive, i.e. from "all" to "me". Everyone knew *exactly* what you were trying to say. And now you are trying to run away from it.

You do *NOT* have the right to do anything and everything. Natural rights are those things that you can exercise without placing a burden on anyone else, i.e. when you are isolated by yourself in nature. When you use force to make others submit to you then you are placing a burden on them. That makes the use of personal force against others *NOT* a natural right.

From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" (bolding mine, upside)

We do *NOT* give up liberties when we form a society. Societies are formed to SECURE our rights, not to limit them!

I think you are lost in the thread forest. You never asked me any such thing. Again, you do *NOT* have the right to put burdens on others, including disturbing the peace. You have no natural right to make children watch you masturbate or walk around naked. If you take drugs then you force others to assume the burden of adjusting to your state of intoxication.

Because the Constitution would never have been ratified. Politics is many times the art of the possible. It is simply idiotic to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As usual, you make a flat statement but offer no evidence. Exactly what limited resources are there that you think you could gain exclusive control over? Oil? Gold? Silver? Wheat? Lumber? Money? Land? Air?

I simply don't care what you are politically. The fact is that you don't demonstrate any knowledge of the founding principles of this nation. It is this ignorance, widespread that it is today, that will end the promise of this nation.

 

Didn't realize this thread was still going. I'm still waiting for any of the positive rights people to explain how or why it's okay for a slave to revolt against slavery if s/he has no natural right to do so. Or the people to revolt against their government if they have no natural rights that can be violated by a repressive government. If might equals right and a more primitive, patriarchal society replaces a more modern, enlightened one, does that mean the more primitive morality is the correct one?

 

I told you what i meant, perhaps i should've added 'but in my view...' but i took a short cut. the fact that you harp on this shows you are struggling to gain any ground in any argument. It's amusing. Keep it at it grammar mom. :]

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Natural rights are rights to do everything and anything in a state of nature with one goal in mind - self preservation. If i need to kill you to survive cause you have food and water i need, i have the RIGHT to take your life. Only a society can step in and take away these liberties as is the case with not allowing me to walk around naked, jerk off in public, buy sex, sell myself for sex, take drugs. Society takes away these liberties/natural rights in order to ensure everyone plays by rules that are not natural, to peacefully co-exist.

these are made up rights with the intent to ensure society is civil and by a group of people that did nothing to end slavery. Not only are these rights made up by a group of men, they are extremely vague. Why do you think we needed the bill of rights afterwards? and even these are just man made, nothing natural about them.

. Factually incorrect. In a true state of nature, i can walk around naked, jerk off in public, sell my body for sex, harm myself by taking a drug,pay for sex BUT these liberties have been taken away by men who have made up rights and laws that promote a civl society.

I did ask, you didn't respond, again, poor reading comprehension.

i wrote:
'if natural rights exist, there must be a specific list, otherwise, the concept is meaningless. Let me ask you, why don't you have the right to walk around naked? jerk off in a public park in front of everyone? sell your body for sex? inject heroine in your system? Are these not natural rights? why not?'

THESE ARE ALL NATURAL RIGHTS. WE CAN ALL DO THIS IN A TRUE STATE OF NATURE, only laws can take these natural liberties away.

invalid response, if our founding fathers truly believed in a set of rights, they would've ensured constitution didn't allow for slavery, due to cowardice, i view these rights as invalid and just man made.

if you think resources are limitless, no point in even arguing with you.

In fact, it is you that don't quite comprehend the founding principles of this nation; not only this, you show no critical thinking skills.. you don't question anything. If founding fathers said x, x cannot be refuted! lol

 

You are then one that keeps harping on it, hoping to convince everyone you didn't say exactly what you meant. Keep it up. It *is* amusing!

Again, natural rights are those things you can exercise without putting a burden on others. They are those rights you can exercise with no one else around you - a total state of nature.

You do *NOT* have a NATURAL right to take the life of someone else in order for *you* to survive because, again, natural rights are those you have when no one else is around. At its base your philosophy is that of all dictators - might makes right.

How do you sell your body for sex when there is no one around? What you do when no one else is around *is* being done in private, not in public! You taking drugs doesn't just harm you, it places burdens on others that are required to accomodate you.

The Bill of Rights doesn't define our rights. The Bill of Rights protects certain of our rights from incursion by government. I gave you Amendment 9 already, apparently you didn't bother to read it! Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Think about that statement for a while.

In a true state of nature there is no one else around, it is a place of perfect privacy. What you do privately doesn't affect others. It's when you affect others, i.e. put a burden on them in forcing them to accomodate you and your actions, that you are outside your natural rights.

George Mason: “Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.”

In fact, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina had prohibited the importation of slaves. Many of the CC delegates were against slavery. But at the time, slavery was thought to be *state* province, not one for the new federal government.

You *still* haven't given even one resource that we have run out of. NOT ONE! NOT A SINGLE ONE!

The only one refusing to discuss the issue is you. You want to make a declaration that resources are scarce and then have everyone accept that declaration as if you are some infallible authority on the subject. The fact that you can't list even one resource we have run out of totally undercuts any claim to authority on the subject you might have!

Refutation is certainly possible. You just haven't offered up any refutation. When you can argue for and against natural rights on the level of John Locke, come back and try again.

 

Talking about rights in a total state of nature with no-one around is meaningless. In a total state of nature with no-one around, i have the right to do anything and everything so what's the point?

stop making completely meaningless points about rights with no-one around. Now, when people are around each other, YES, i have the natural right to KILL you if it means my survival.

again, in a state of nature, i have the right to walk around naked, use drugs, sell myself for sex and buy sex. These are negative rights and liberties which have been taken away by society, you can't win this argument.

right to speech, right to religious freedom, right to bear arms are not defining some rights? The sentence you provide has no relevance here, whatsoever.

People have been living together for thousands of years, even back to hunters and gatherers. A state of nature does not mean 'alone', this is UNNATURAL. You are using this to deflect and run away from arguments you cannot counter.

No excuse for founding fathers to claim they can provide a framework for rights of man if they couldn't even end slavery.

pointless, slavery wasn't abolished, NO EXCUSE.

i said there is no limitless resource - water, trees, cows, pigs, every agricultural product, all foods, air. Do we have an infinite number of these things? don't answer a question by changing the context, my statement is factual.

it's a fact of life, there is not an infinite amount of everything in life.

You don't know anything about Locke who believed natural law dictated that natural rights included a duty to respect each other's rights, your definition? claiming natural rights are in state of nature, man alone. You don't know ANYTHING about Locke.

 

To paraphrase Shakespeare, Mike12's posts are "a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."