• 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.

Unalienable rights: Let those flatter who fear; it is not an American art.

29A

29A

Active member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
450
Reaction score
171
Location
St. Louis, MO.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Writing in a 1774 pamphlet titled, “A Summary View of the Rights of British America,” Jefferson says:

"...these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate: Let those flatter who fear; it is not an American art. "
A Summary View of the Rights of British America.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
Declaration of Independence.


In a May 8, 1825 letter to Henry Lee, Jefferson further explained the Declaration of Independence:

"This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.

All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. … "
May 8, 1825 letter to Henry Lee.

Let us quit with the fooling, flattery and fallacy.

Unalienable rights were given to mankind by philosophers.

Aristotle (happiness) Cicero (natural laws), Locke (life, liberty, property), and then Jefferson's DOI.
 
That we have inalienable rights is a fantastic notion. But I know of no way to determine what they are or to protect them besides the rule of law. To be ruled by those we choose and elect, and to have no one above the law, is the right from which all others can be secured.
 
It would be the pinnacle of vanity to presume that natural rights were "given" by any human. That a man put pen to paper and expressed his thoughts that others could read and contemplate on them is not a gift of rights. It is merely an instruction on how to follow a path to find that which God has given.
 
Lutherf said:
It would be the pinnacle of vanity to presume that natural rights were "given" by any human. That a man put pen to paper and expressed his thoughts that others could read and contemplate on them is not a gift of rights. It is merely an instruction on how to follow a path to find that which God has given.
Click to expand...

Thank "god" for the 1st amendment then, lol!
 
KevinKohler said:
Thank "god" for the 1st amendment then, lol!
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the 1st Amendment is a confirmation of rights as opposed to an affirmation that those rights exist and are not to be abridged by law?
 
Lutherf said:
Are you suggesting that the 1st Amendment is a confirmation of rights as opposed to an affirmation that those rights exist and are not to be abridged by law?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying I am happy I have the right NOT to worship your god.
 
Lutherf said:
It would be the pinnacle of vanity to presume that natural rights were "given" by any human. That a man put pen to paper and expressed his thoughts that others could read and contemplate on them is not a gift of rights. It is merely an instruction on how to follow a path to find that which God has given.
Click to expand...

They were "given" by philosophers in that it was they who first articulated them. To assert unalienable rights existed prior to their articulation would be an anachronism. It is similar to asserting heliocentrism as having existed prior to Copernicus' development of his predictive mathematical model...or denying spontaneous generation before it was debunked by Pasteur. Neither can one blame unalienable rights, such as those listed in the DOI, on God, because they don't exist in the Sacred Texts of any religion.
 
Paschendale said:
That we have inalienable rights is a fantastic notion. But I know of no way to determine what they are or to protect them besides the rule of law. To be ruled by those we choose and elect, and to have no one above the law, is the right from which all others can be secured.
Click to expand...

I would present it a little differently, and would begin with Jefferson's unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property). Those should first be more thoroughly defined, delineated, for instance perhaps, when does life begin and what precisely does it entail. The same goes for the Bill of Rights, for instance, what does the Fourth Amendment's "effects" mean. The only thing left is for mankind to self-guarantee that those rights are in fact inalienable/unalienable. Rule of law really doesn't do it for me because the law may always be written such that rights are attenuated.
 
Lutherf said:
Are you suggesting that the 1st Amendment is a confirmation of rights as opposed to an affirmation that those rights exist and are not to be abridged by law?
Click to expand...

Like it or not, the 1st Amendment is a bunch of flowery language that really has nothing to do with reality. Rights, all rights, are granted by society. They have no meaning otherwise. The Founding Fathers thought the ideas in the Constitution were a good idea and largely, Americans have continued with those ideas ever since. That doesn't make those rights magical, just respected, more or less.
 
Cephus said:
the 1st Amendment is a bunch of flowery language that really has nothing to do with reality.
Click to expand...

I would disagree, and consider the 1st to be far more definite and based in reality than the soaring language of the DOI.
 
29A said:
I would disagree, and consider the 1st to be far more definite and based in reality than the soaring language of the DOI.
Click to expand...

No one can demonstrate the actual existence of any right anywhere outside of human society. It just doesn't exist.
 
Cephus said:
No one can demonstrate the actual existence of any right anywhere outside of human society. It just doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Right. If a tree falls...does it make a sound without the language in order to call it "sound"?

29A said:
They were "given" by philosophers in that it was they who first articulated them. To assert unalienable rights existed prior to their articulation would be an anachronism. It is similar to asserting heliocentrism as having existed prior to Copernicus' development of his predictive mathematical model...or denying spontaneous generation before it was debunked by Pasteur. Neither can one blame unalienable rights, such as those listed in the DOI, on God, because they don't exist in the Sacred Texts of any religion.
Click to expand...
 
29A said:
Right. If a tree falls...does it make a sound without the language in order to call it "sound"?
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Regardless of what you call a sound, it is still just vibrations in air.
 
As an outsider I find it strange how Americans have a religious style of thinking about the declaration of independence/constitution.

Both are recent legal documents.

Both are highly political.

A longer sense of history is a good antidote to such thinking.

We have these rights because we will fight to retain them as necessary. When this changes we will lose these rights.
 
Paschendale said:
That we have inalienable rights is a fantastic notion. But I know of no way to determine what they are or to protect them besides the rule of law. To be ruled by those we choose and elect, and to have no one above the law, is the right from which all others can be secured.
Click to expand...
Not to be ruled, but to be governed. Dictators rule subjects; masters rule slaves. Elected representatives govern free people.
 
Cephus said:
No one can demonstrate the actual existence of any right anywhere outside of human society. It just doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
They aren't found in human society, they are found in human nature. A just society simply adopts and secures them.
 
Fletch said:
They aren't found in human society, they are found in human nature. A just society simply adopts and secures them.
Click to expand...

Which is just a bunch of self-serving gobbledegook and you know it.
 
Both rights and God are human inventions
 
29A said:
Unalienable rights were given to mankind by philosophers.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that philosophers came up with the idea of unalienable rights, but that rights of any kind only exist via the application of force. It would be the pinnacle of vanity to presume that natural rights were instilled by some supernatural force only to homo sapiens and exist independently.
 
obvious Child said:
I'd argue that philosophers came up with the idea of unalienable rights, but that rights of any kind only exist via the application of force. It would be the pinnacle of vanity to presume that natural rights were instilled by some supernatural force only to homo sapiens and exist independently.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, philosophy, especially modern philosophy, is just intellectual fast talk, it isn't actually based on anything concrete, it's just wishful thinking with a degree. There are a lot of philosophers who aren't worth their intellectual weight in piss.
 
29A said:
Unalienable rights were given to mankind by philosophers.
Click to expand...

Rights are a fundamental part of the human condition. They are only labelled and brought to our awareness by philosophers. This is akin to saying gravity or the speed of light did not exist until they were elucidated by scientists.

Cephus said:
Rights, all rights, are granted by society.
Click to expand...

No, they are observed and respected by society. Some individuals do not respect the right of life. Does this mean that it does not exist?

Paschendale said:
To be ruled by those we choose and elect, and to have no one above the law, is the right from which all others can be secured.
Click to expand...

Democracy is no less slavery than is a totalitarian regime. Voting for your master in no way avoids creating a ruling class.
 
TNAR said:
Rights are a fundamental part of the human condition. They are only labelled and brought to our awareness by philosophers. This is akin to saying gravity or the speed of light did not exist until they were elucidated by scientists.
Click to expand...

Rights are an INVENTED part of the human condition, they were created by societies as a short cut to having to justify common treatment. That doesn't mean they actually exist, only that they are implied by the society in question and societies across the globe and throughout history have had entirely different ideas of what constituted basic human rights. There simply is no universally agreed upon set of rights, it doesn't exist. It wasn't brought to anyone's awareness, it was made up and irrationally justified by philosophers.

No, they are observed and respected by society. Some individuals do not respect the right of life. Does this mean that it does not exist?
Click to expand...

It exists within the society which thinks that it does. Such things are codified by society, it isn't magic. People die all the time for various reasons, has their right to life been violated?
 
TNAR said:
Rights are a fundamental part of the human condition. They are only labelled and brought to our awareness by philosophers. This is akin to saying gravity or the speed of light did not exist until they were elucidated by scientists.
Click to expand...

Individual rights aren't fundamental; they didn't exist in the era of the "divine rights of kings". Gravity, the speed of light, etc. were unknown and useless until they were defined by scientists. They may as well not have existed - one might as well put the cart before the horse.
 
Paschendale said:
That we have inalienable rights is a fantastic notion. But I know of no way to determine what they are or to protect them besides the rule of law. To be ruled by those we choose and elect, and to have no one above the law, is the right from which all others can be secured.
Click to expand...

... but is the inherent anthema of the liberal left ... to presume that they do not have control, that they must answer to a greater authority (the rule of law) violates their precious ego.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom