• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Objective Basis for Natural Rights

david52875

david52875

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
750
Reaction score
37
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm sick and tired of hearing people say "Rights are just things we agree on" or "Rights don't exist" or "My definition of rights is different than yours" or "If you have a right to life, why am I able to shoot you dead" etc. Natural Rights derive from the observation that nobody has the authority to force you to do something or not do something. Keep in mind that Authority does not equal ability. Just because I may have the ability to rob a bank, does not mean I have the authority to. Since nobody has the authority to use force against another, for example, nobody has the authority to kill you, we say you have a right to life. Nobody has the authority to use force or coercion to steal your property, so we say you have a right to your estate, property etc. You don't have rights to things, however. Somebody not giving you a car is not using force against you.

So governments are instituted amongst men in order to secure these rights. In other words, to stop the unwarranted use of force against another.
 
spud_meister said:
But the government has the authority to take you life, property etc.
Click to expand...

Where does it get this authority? Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. So, no they don't. Remember Ability != Authority.
 
david52875 said:
Where does it get this authority? Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. So, no they don't. Remember Ability != Authority.
Click to expand...

And the governed decide what is authoritative based on the societal/cultural norms of the time and place. Natural rights are fake and do not exist.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And the governed decide what is authoritative based on the societal/cultural norms of the time and place. Natural rights are fake and do not exist.
Click to expand...

No, some may try to use the government to violate the rights of others, but ability does not equal authority. Stopping the use of unwarranted force has nothing to do with cultural norms.
 
If nobody has the authority to force me to not do something I want to do, then the people don't have that authority to grant it to the government. They have no more right to stop me from doing whatever I want to do than I have to force them to do whatever I want to do.

So yes, it really does boil down to who has enough power to force the issue.

I'm sick and tired of seeing people try to argue that "the law"-- whether it's just law or unjust law-- is anything more than the opinion of men with guns, especially when they are using the opinions of dead men to justify policies those men would not have supported when they lived, in support of principles those men did not uphold while they lived.
 
david52875 said:
No, some may try to use the government to violate the rights of others, but ability does not equal authority. Stopping the use of unwarranted force has nothing to do with cultural norms.
Click to expand...

Setting laws and rights always has to do with cultural norms. If the norm dictates that force is acceptable, then both the ability and authority is there.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
If nobody has the authority to force me to not do something I want to do, then the people don't have that authority to grant it to the government. They have no more right to stop me from doing whatever I want to do than I have to force them to do whatever I want to do.

So yes, it really does boil down to who has enough power to force the issue.

I'm sick and tired of seeing people try to argue that "the law"-- whether it's just law or unjust law-- is anything more than the opinion of men with guns, especially when they are using the opinions of dead men to justify policies those men would not have supported when they lived, in support of principles those men did not uphold while they lived.
Click to expand...

You don't grant the government anything. You create the government to stop the use of unwarranted force.

especially when they are using the opinions of dead men to justify policies those men would not have supported when they lived
Click to expand...

I'm assuming your talking about the founding fathers, but even they did not agree on everything. You'll have to be more specific.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Setting laws and rights always has to do with cultural norms. If the norm dictates that force is acceptable, then both the ability and authority is there.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing the ability is there, but you do absolutely nothing to prove the authority. That is exactly why governments are created, to remove the ability to use unwarranted force.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
If the norm dictates that force is acceptable, then both the ability and authority is there.
Click to expand...

It does not matter if it is acceptable. What matters is if it is authorized.
 
david52875 said:
Where does it get this authority? Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. So, no they don't. Remember Ability != Authority.
Click to expand...

What happens if the governed don't consent to what the government does? They silenced by the men with guns the government hires, and the government gets its way anyway.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And the governed decide what is authoritative based on the societal/cultural norms of the time and place. Natural rights are fake and do not exist.
Click to expand...

No, even if they try to, ability does not equal authority.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And the governed decide what is authoritative based on the societal/cultural norms of the time and place. Natural rights are fake and do not exist.
Click to expand...

All you have proven is that the government has the ability, NOT the authority, to use force. WHERE does the government get the authority to use unwarranted force against someone?
 
spud_meister said:
They silenced by the men with guns the government hires, and the government gets its way anyway.
Click to expand...

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You tell yourself, the government can violate my rights, so you let them, and they do.
 
david52875 said:
You don't grant the government anything. You create the government to stop the use of unwarranted force.
Click to expand...

No, I create the government to enforce moral order. I don't accept your definition of "unwarranted" and I don't care about it.

The government has unlimited authority to do what is right, and zero authority to do what is wrong.
 
david52875 said:
AUTHORITY, not ABILITY.
Click to expand...

You know, if you're going to get so worked up about the difference between "authority" and "ability", maybe you should attempt to define what "authority" is.

edit: And then explain to us in objective terms why we should give a damn about authority when it apparently doesn't have anything to do with ability.
 
Last edited:
Viktyr Korimir said:
You know, if you're going to get so worked up about the difference between "authority" and "ability", maybe you should attempt to define what "authority" is.

edit: And then explain to us in objective terms why we should give a damn about authority when it apparently doesn't have anything to do with ability.
Click to expand...

Emphasizing something, after it's been ignored several times is not getting "worked up."

To have an authority to do something is to have a legitimate basis from which to derive that power.
 
You're talking in circles. What makes power "legitimate"?
 
david52875 said:
I'm not disputing the ability is there, but you do absolutely nothing to prove the authority. That is exactly why governments are created, to remove the ability to use unwarranted force.
Click to expand...

The people give the government the authority. And if the people want, they can change what authority the government has or what it can do with that authority. If the people want to give the government unwarranted force, it can.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
No, I create the government to enforce moral order. I don't accept your definition of "unwarranted" and I don't care about it.

The government has unlimited authority to do what is right, and zero authority to do what is wrong.
Click to expand...

Should the government throw people in jail for cheating on their spouses? Or making fun of somebody? There are some things that are immoral which the government should not regulate.
 
david52875 said:
All you have proven is that the government has the ability, NOT the authority, to use force. WHERE does the government get the authority to use unwarranted force against someone?
Click to expand...

From the people if the people give it to the government. Very simple.
 
david52875 said:
Should the government throw people in jail for cheating on their spouses?
Click to expand...

If the people choose to give the government that power, based on social norms, sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom