• 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.

Are rights granted or innate?

Korimyr the Rat said:
There are plenty of people who don't believe in the latter two.
Click to expand...

I guarantee they expect their own right to expression and self defense.

If they don't recognize that for others, it's a matter of tyranny or insanity, both of which are rightly excluded from a sociological concept.

Here's a way to grasp this concept:

In a group of equal power (to exclude tyranny) and sane (sociological) individuals, the agreement to observe rights to life, expression and self defense will always be arrived at as a result of our species drive for self preservation.


Another way, in the form of a question:

Given you lose your right if you deny it, do you recognize rights to life, expression and self defense?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post

There are eminently three such agreements: the rights to life, expression and self defense.

Korimyr the Rat said:
There are plenty of people who don't believe in the latter two.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The right to life and self-defense are intertwined.

I doubt there is any universality over the millennia of a right of expression.
 
ecofarm said:
Given you lose your right if you deny it, do you recognize rights to life, expression and self defense?
Click to expand...

Yes, but unlike the majority of people, I actually recognize that if I deny others' rights I will end up forfeiting my own.

Most people have no concept whatsoever that the laws they promote can and will be used against them when it suits their "leaders".
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Yes, but unlike the majority of people, I actually recognize that if I deny others' rights I will end up forfeiting my own.
Click to expand...

Still, everyone (except the insane) answer that question in the affirmative. Everyone from every time and every place in the history of the world. The affirmation (in the absence of tyranny or insanity) is universal and thus socially natural.

Most people have no concept whatsoever that the laws they promote can and will be used against them when it suits their "leaders".
Click to expand...

Most people go right along with tyranny as long as it benefits them. That does not change what their answer would be given equal power with those they oppress.
 
Sweden said:
'Rights' are a social construct. They vary from one society to another, and within a society over time. I imagine that each group of our ancestors if 100,000 years ago worked out their own system as to who had the right to the best bits of a newly killed animal.
Click to expand...

rights in america are natural rights, and follow nature and because they do, no natural right can ever lay a cost or burden on another citizen.

rights which would be created by man can lay a cost or burden on a citizen.
 
ernst barkmann said:
a simple premise is that - i as a man, cannot give another man a right, and he cannot give me a right, therefore how can we elect people as part of government and have them grant rights, when we do not have the ability within ourselves.
Click to expand...

We have seen plenty of periods throughout human history where others killed at will and whim. If you are going on the premise of possessing natural 'rights' you have to acknowledge that others can destroy those 'rights' at any time. That by definition is the antithesis of 'rights'.
 
VanceMack said:
We have seen plenty of periods throughout human history where others killed at will and whim. If you are going on the premise of possessing natural 'rights' you have to acknowledge that others can destroy those 'rights' at any time. That by definition is the antithesis of 'rights'.
Click to expand...

yes, people have been killed because of no government, and because a government was nefarious.

no one is saying because you have natural rights, you cannot be killed or not have them violated, but when you have a government that does secure rights, people that do such terrible things are brought to justice that is what secure means,...it does not mean, no rights violations will never take place
 
clownboy said:
There have been many threads on this specific topic, intensively discussed.
Click to expand...

Yet it still doesn't stop the libertarians from getting it entirely wrong.
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes, people have been killed because of no government, and because a government was nefarious.

no one is saying because you have natural rights, you cannot be killed or not have them violated, but when you have a government that does secure rights, people that do such terrible things are brought to justice that is what secure means,...it does not mean, no rights violations will never take place
Click to expand...

When is a 'right' not a 'right'?
 
GottaGo said:
Would you be so kind as to define that statement a little better? (asking straight, no slight)

Rights have to be mentally conceived to be 'given', or 'taken', not a tangible thing that can be stolen in the night.
Click to expand...

Rights are taken. Ie the owner of the rights in question enforces their application. Rights unenforced are no rights at all. However someone perceives their rights are derived, whatever they be, in the end must be enforced or taken to applicable.
 
ernst barkmann said:
there are rights, and there are privileges in our law

when it does not follow the laws of nature its not a right.
Click to expand...


Rights are ideals. They are great to consider...to fight for...to strive for...but anything that can so easily be denied is not a right.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no... the right is just not secure

government is formed to secure the rights only, people have from their own humanity
Click to expand...
And therefore...............

not a right. An idea. A desire. A theoretical construct.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no rights exist always, whether you can exercise them will depend on if government exist, and if it enforces it laws faithfully
Click to expand...


If a car has no engine, is it still a car? or just a hunk of steel?

If a right cannot be exercised, is it still a right? Or just a really neat idea?

________________________________


Still wondering what the "Natural right"-ers consider to be their "Natural" rights...
 
Critter7r said:
If a car has no engine, is it still a car? or just a hunk of steel?

If a right cannot be exercised, is it still a right? Or just a really neat idea?

________________________________


Still wondering what the "Natural right"-ers consider to be their "Natural" rights...
Click to expand...

yes, its still a right because it is natural to the body.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no rights exist always, whether you can exercise them will depend on if government exist, and if it enforces it laws faithfully
Click to expand...

I think the people create and determine rights not governments. The people create government to serve their needs the same as a wheel barrow. When government stops serving the people and starts trying to rule the people the government is broken and needs fixing. Our government needs fixing. Our government does not create rights. A good government that serves the people acknowledges our rights, list our rights, and protects our rights. An evil corupt government does not acknowledge our rights, but attempts to restrict our rights, and even take them away. Just because a bully takes my wallet it is still my wallet. Just because a bully government restricts my rights they are still my rights. If I want them back whether it is my wallet or rights I must be willing to fight and die for them.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I think the people create and determine rights not governments. The people create government to serve their needs the same as a wheel barrow. When government stops serving the people and starts trying to rule the people the government is broken and needs fixing. Our government needs fixing. Our government does not create rights. A good government that serves the people acknowledges our rights, list our rights, and protects our rights. An evil corupt government does not acknowledge our rights, but attempts to restrict our rights, and even take them away. Just because a bully takes my wallet it is still my wallet. Just because a bully government restricts my rights they are still my rights. If I want them back whether it is my wallet or rights I must be willing to fight and die for them.
Click to expand...

then ask the question, if man creates his own rights then why is there not at least one right which violates the right of other men.. in american history.

when man has the power to create privileges which he does, he has violated natural rights.
 
Critter7r said:
The right to life and self-defense are intertwined.

I doubt there is any universality over the millennia of a right of expression.
Click to expand...

The only 'right to life' and 'self defense' you have it the right that society has given you. Those 'rights' can be taken away if you violate the unspoken contract with society, and appear to threaten society.
 
ernst barkmann said:
then ask the question, if man creates his own rights then why is there not at least one right which violates the right of other men.. in american history.

when man has the power to create privileges which he does, he has violated natural rights.
Click to expand...

There are no such thing as 'natural rights'. not in the sense you are using the term. It's a metaphysical concept that basically is saying 'This is how things ought to be', where there is much variation among the claimers about how things 'ought' to be. As such, it is entirely defined by man, and is not natural.
 
RAMOSS said:
The only 'right to life' and 'self defense' you have it the right that society has given you. Those 'rights' can be taken away if you violate the unspoken contract with society, and appear to threaten society.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I was just pointing out the redundancy of claiming a right to "life" and also a right to "self-defense".
 
Critter7r said:
Agreed.

I was just pointing out the redundancy of claiming a right to "life" and also a right to "self-defense".
Click to expand...

And , those 'rights' can be taken away. Just look at Robert Finicum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom