• 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?

Critter7r said:
In another thread, a tangent developed in which I advanced the idea that governments grant rights to their citizens by way of protecting those rights. Without governments to protect rights, one is unable to exercise rights. Without the ability to exercise their rights, the citizenry effectively doesn't have those rights. Ergo, governments grant rights.

:::donning flamesuit:::

The tangential posts were a distraction to the original thread, so let's continue this here ... instead of having it in the Wealth Distribution thread ...
Click to expand...

Two ways to get rights, IMO: carry a big gun and hope you use it before the next guy does or have a government carry one for you and hope they don't abuse their power. Anything else is fantasyland bull****..
 
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.
Click to expand...

I don't need to ask the question. Each persons rights only extend to the point where they start to infringe on another persons rights. There is nothing difficult about this.

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

Not so. A drivers license grants a person the privilege to drive on public roads. How does licensed drivers violate peoples rights. People can drive on private property without a license. Along with most privileges comes responsibility and liability.

I am a licensed plumber. This gives me the privilege to install plumbing in peoples homes for wages. I have become a licensed professional through training. If a house blows up that I installed the gas piping in I can be held liable for negligent homicide even murder if they can prove I knowingly did an unsafe installation. I will be held to a much higher standard than a do it yourself-er. With most privilege comes liability and responsibility.

A homeowner can work on their own plumbing without a license. Unless the plumbing they are working on has an effect on other peoples property. Then usually an inspection by a professional is required to maintain the safety of the community.
 
RAMOSS said:
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.
Click to expand...

natural rights follow nature, , rights which would be created by man, would surly violate the rights of other men and we have no rights that do that in america.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I don't need to ask the question. Each persons rights only extend to the point where they start to infringe on another persons rights. There is nothing difficult about this.



Not so. A drivers license grants a person the privilege to drive on public roads. How does licensed drivers violate peoples rights. People can drive on private property without a license. Along with most privileges comes responsibility and liability.

I am a licensed plumber. This gives me the privilege to install plumbing in peoples homes for wages. I have become a licensed professional through training. If a house blows up that I installed the gas piping in I can be held liable for negligent homicide even murder if they can prove I knowingly did an unsafe installation. I will be held to a much higher standard than a do it yourself-er. With most privilege comes liability and responsibility.

A homeowner can work on their own plumbing without a license. Unless the plumbing they are working on has an effect on other peoples property. Then usually an inspection by a professional is required to maintain the safety of the community.
Click to expand...

yes, the exercise of your rights ends when they enter the realm of another.

i did not say all privileges, the part civil rights act of 1964 which is applies to citizens, violates rights of people, because government has given people a civil right to be served by another person, and if the other person refuses too, the them government fines them and forces them out of business.

no person has a right to be served by another, because that would put lien on the rights of the other person
 
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...
Now you are getting it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes, the exercise of your rights ends when they enter the realm of another.

i did not say all privileges, the part civil rights act of 1964 which is applies to citizens, violates rights of people, because government has given people a civil right to be served by another person, and if the other person refuses too, the them government fines them and forces them out of business.

no person has a right to be served by another, because that would put lien on the rights of the other person
Click to expand...

Government has lost sight of who they serve. Every time I deal with a government official they believe they are above the average citizen and rule over them. It is usually the government that believes their authority overrules our rights. This is the main reason I will not vote for Hilary. I like a lot of the issues she stands for but she has no respect for individual rights. She also clearly thinks government rules over the people.
 
ernst barkmann said:
natural rights follow nature, , rights which would be created by man, would surly violate the rights of other men and we have no rights that do that in america.
Click to expand...

Yet, no one is able to show that 'right that follow nature' are anything more than 'this is an opinion on how I think things should be'. That's the issue. IT's claims without validation.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Government has lost sight of who they serve. Every time I deal with a government official they believe they are above the average citizen and rule over them. It is usually the government that believes their authority overrules our rights. This is the main reason I will not vote for Hilary. I like a lot of the issues she stands for but she has no respect for individual rights. She also clearly thinks government rules over the people.
Click to expand...

"like"
 
RAMOSS said:
Yet, no one is able to show that 'right that follow nature' are anything more than 'this is an opinion on how I think things should be'. That's the issue. IT's claims without validation.
Click to expand...

is not not natural for you to speak, to pray, to associate with those you wish, to protect yourself when attacked, they are things of nature
 
ecofarm said:
Some social agreements are universal and thus socially natural. These agreements need not be observed by an authority for them to exist. That these agreements are violated in no way discounts their universality; they are inalienable not inviolable. These universal agreements are self evident - just ask yourself and everyone you know. There are eminently three such agreements: the rights to life, expression and self defense.

The question governments decide are the extent to which these rights can be exercised without imposing on the same rights of others. This balancing of rights with each other and between individuals is the basis of Western law.
Click to expand...

Do any other species have rights? If not, then neither do Homo sapiens.

Rights are entirely a man-made concept and some are very common globally because they developed from the same need: for Humans to survive, our species needed to be able to live together in tribal groups (beyond extended family). We needed to use cooperation to protect breeding females, young, resources, territory, etc and yet develop a social foundation where behavior was controlled within the group so that predation of those same things didnt occur within the group.

And thus the rights must be enumerated before they can be recognized by others, protected, violated, etc.
 
ernst barkmann said:
is not not natural for you to speak, to pray, to associate with those you wish, to protect yourself when attacked, they are things of nature
Click to expand...

Those are not rights. As for protecting yourselves when attacked, , ask Tamir Rice.
 
calamity said:
Two ways to get rights, IMO: carry a big gun and hope you use it before the next guy does or have a government carry one for you and hope they don't abuse their power. Anything else is fantasyland bull****..
Click to expand...

Those aren't rights, those are abilities. Rights come from the agreement of society to treat everyone the same with regard to a particular issue. If society stops agreeing, those rights go away.
 
ernst barkmann said:
is not not natural for you to speak, to pray, to associate with those you wish, to protect yourself when attacked, they are things of nature
Click to expand...

So is killing others, that happens in nature all the time. Is that a natural right too?
 
Cephus said:
Those aren't rights, those are abilities. Rights come from the agreement of society to treat everyone the same with regard to a particular issue. If society stops agreeing, those rights go away.
Click to expand...

In some ways that is not entirely accurate, as we see SCOTUS and the Constitution itself acting as a buffer from the tyranny of the majority. Now, a super-majority can reverse all that, of course. So, yes, rights are somewhat society dependent, but they are not whims of the moment dependent.
 
calamity said:
In some ways that is not entirely accurate, as we see SCOTUS and the Constitution itself acting as a buffer from the tyranny of the majority. Now, a super-majority can reverse all that, of course. So, yes, rights are somewhat society dependent, but they are not whims of the moment dependent.
Click to expand...

No, rights are completely socially dependent. We just so happen to have the Constitution, which was adopted by society, as the highest law in the land. People cannot violate that without, as you say, overriding the Constitution via either an amendment, or by rising up and overthrowing the government entirely. The Constitution is society's granting of rights. It wasn't nature that did it, it was society.
 
Some people really miss the point on this I think.
The point isn't about magical rights that are made of matter and energy.

It's that governments can be abused and used to enslave people, have been used as such, and likely will again.
Recognizing that you individuals are the music makers, the dreamers of dreams* and government is just another such creation OF humans, allows you to understand you should always have the power to stand up for what you believe is right. A government cannot reasonably dictate you are "wrong" or that a true fact is "false", or that you are now and always shall be "a worthless slave".

Good grief, its as if some of you want to repeat the past and just be like North Korea?
 
Cephus said:
It wasn't nature that did it, it was society.
Click to expand...
It's not who did it, it's what they chose to do, and why. Society is, by the way, composes of humans, who are despite our best efforts, still a part of nature.

Why did society do that, as opposed to simply writing down the recipe for vanilla ice cream? If natural rights are a made up fairy tale, why didn't they just write about the tooth fairy? Because they wrote about something...something they didn't create, it's something they...observed.
 
Cephus said:
No, rights are completely socially dependent. We just so happen to have the Constitution, which was adopted by society, as the highest law in the land. People cannot violate that without, as you say, overriding the Constitution via either an amendment, or by rising up and overthrowing the government entirely. The Constitution is society's granting of rights. It wasn't nature that did it, it was society.
Click to expand...

Well, you certainly didn't see me singing praises to the concept of "natural rights." In fact, I'd say that's one of the sillier concepts the nuts have come up with.
 
Mach said:
It's not who did it, it's what they chose to do, and why. Society is, by the way, composes of humans, who are despite our best efforts, still a part of nature.

Why did society do that, as opposed to simply writing down the recipe for vanilla ice cream? If natural rights are a made up fairy tale, why didn't they just write about the tooth fairy? Because they wrote about something...something they didn't create, it's something they...observed.
Click to expand...

No, it's something they wish was true. It's the same nonsense as people who pretend rights come from some imaginary friend in the sky. They can't justify it, they just want it to be so, therefore they invent some kind of ad hoc rationalization that is true without having to be defended.
 
Mach said:
It's not who did it, it's what they chose to do, and why. Society is, by the way, composes of humans, who are despite our best efforts, still a part of nature.

Why did society do that, as opposed to simply writing down the recipe for vanilla ice cream? If natural rights are a made up fairy tale, why didn't they just write about the tooth fairy? Because they wrote about something...something they didn't create, it's something they...observed.
Click to expand...
Well not exactly.

Lursa said:
Do any other species have rights? If not, then neither do Homo sapiens.

Rights are entirely a man-made concept and some are very common globally because they developed from the same need: for Humans to survive, our species needed to be able to live together in tribal groups (beyond extended family). We needed to use cooperation to protect breeding females, young, resources, territory, etc and yet develop a social foundation where behavior was controlled within the group so that predation of those same things didnt occur within the group.

And thus the rights must be enumerated before they can be recognized by others, protected, violated, etc.
Click to expand...
 
ernst barkmann said:
so are you going to say if you are attacked, you just stand still and but nothing to protect yourself from that attack?
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with rights. Behavior does not = right.

No more than walking, eating, having sex, communicating, fleeing, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom