• 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.

Natural Rights versus Manmade Rights

Moot said:
I agree.

Natural rights are inherent and inalienable and posited by God, reason or nature. Whereas Positive law are man made legal rights.


The right to exercise one's labor is a right in property...
Click to expand...
Agreed up to this point.
whereas the right to property earned by ones labor is a positive right.
Click to expand...
The right to fruits of your labor is just one example of the natural right to property that begins with one's self as the original property right and that which flows from that point, such as you mentioned, is also a natural right of property.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Natural rights can be discussed within the sphere of religion if you like. That is your belief. It makes you no more correct than those that discuss natural rights outside the sphere of religion. You and I have had this discussion before, just on a different subject. I do not dismiss God, although you continue to say I do simply because I don't follow the exact criteria that you set for being an acceptable Christian.
Click to expand...

I don't get why anyone would come at natural rights from a religious standpoint when sociological fact established by empirical evidence will suffice. Just to rustle feathers?
 
ernst barkmann said:
you made a statement on "the people creating the constitution" and that incorrect.....the delegates of the states created the constitution, please stay on track
Click to expand...

We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America....


The very FIRST words in the Constitution are "We the People" in huge big bold letters.. I don't know how you could miss it.


we_the_people.jpg




I think it's pretty clear founders intended a government by consent of the people. That's what Locke believed, too (see his Second Treatise on Government.). In fact, a good portion of the DoI are Locke's words almost verbatim. IE: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

That's pure Locke. Lincoln also understood Locke and the founders intent in his Gettysburg address: "...government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
 
ecofarm said:
I think we derive the natural right to arms from kinda different places, mine not technically requiring ownership of the gun.
Click to expand...

If you think my position requires ownership of the gun because of "property right" then I've been inadequate in my description and explanation. The ownership (right of property) is of one's self. We have the right of property regarding our self. From that natural right, we also logically would have the natural right to defend our property - our self. That same natural right to property of self extends to the fruits of our labor, our intellectual creations, artistic creations, and so on. Those are all natural rights that flow from the natural right of property. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that flows from the natural right to defend one's self that flows from the natural right to property (ownership of one's actual self). Maybe that's more clear.
 
Beaudreaux said:
In another thread, I was having a discussion with another member regarding natural rights and he stated that natural rights were (and I want to make sure I get this correct): The remainder of the quote is about the thread it was made in, and the argument of whether the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is a natural right or not, is not the subject of this thread and there are numerous threads on that subject already - what exactly a natural right is and how it compares to manmade rights... is the topic.

It is my contention, that Natural Rights are derived from Natural Law (as Locke described) and that Manmade Rights are derived from Positive Law where government posits rights upon a man or group(s) of men (gender neutral use of the term men/man).

In my position, Natural Rights exist independent of Positive (manmade) Law and can therefore inalienable and must not be infringed upon by government. Manmade Rights are alienable and can easily be infringed or revoked by any group or government that maintains power of, and control of, man.
In response to the statement above, I asked the following question:



What are your views on this subject?
Click to expand...

Natural rights are ficticious.
There is no natural right (positive or negative) to anything.
 
Moot said:
We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America....


The very FIRST words in the Constitution are "We the People" in huge big bold letters.. I don't know how you could miss it.


we_the_people.jpg




I think it's pretty clear founders intended a government by consent of the people. That's what Locke believed, too (see his Second Treatise on Government.). In fact, a good portion of the DoI are Locke's words almost verbatim. IE: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

That's pure Locke. Lincoln also understood Locke and the founders intent in his Gettysburg address: "...government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
Click to expand...


well its clear you don't know history, "we the people" did not go the the constitutional convention, delegates picked by the state legislatures did and they created the constitution the whole purpose of the convention was to fix there articles of confederation...but instead the delegates created a constitution

the states each had state conventions with delegates to the state conventions chosen by the people to ratify the constitution.


so again.... the people did not create the constitution, delegates chosen by the people only ratified the constitution.

your history is horrible!
 
ernst barkmann said:
so the constitution is wrong,
the declaration of independence is wrong,
federal law is wrong
and the founders
Click to expand...

Sure, they absolutely can be wrong.
There is nothing innate about them that means they're right.

Don't misconstrue what I'm saying though, I'd like their to be natural rights and all that jazz.
I just don't believe it exists.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't get why anyone would come at natural rights from a religious standpoint when sociological fact established by empirical evidence will suffice. Just to rustle feathers?
Click to expand...

Actually it's been that way since the beginning of time. Even in our Declaration of Independence our founding fathers stated:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. ...
Click to expand...

Although our founding fathers recognized the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, tying them together, they also specifically separated them within the Constitution, wherein they limited the governments power to infringe upon those Natural rights, they also separated those rights from the governments power and the government from religion's power.
 
Beaudreaux said:
If you think my position requires ownership of the gun because of "property right" then I've been inadequate in my description and explanation. The ownership (right of property) is of one's self. We have the right of property regarding our self. From that natural right, we also logically would have the natural right to defend our property - our self. That same natural right to property of self extends to the fruits of our labor, our intellectual creations, artistic creations, and so on. Those are all natural rights that flow from the natural right of property. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that flows from the natural right to defend one's self that flows from the natural right to property (ownership of one's actual self). Maybe that's more clear.
Click to expand...

While I get the ownership of oneself thing, I do not agree that ownership of other property constitutes a natural right. I find that the right to arms flows directly from the right to self defense.
 
Paleocon said:
.....
Click to expand...

I am not owned by God. God gave me Free Will and Jesus' Passion with God's Grace saved my soul. Just because I say I am not owned by God, does not equate to dismissing God from my life.

Also, again, none of this has to anything to do with Natural Rights, or Natural Law, or this frigging thread.
 
distraff said:
If it is so in nature then that does not mean we want it in human society. We are not animals. There are no rights in nature.
Click to expand...
Sure there is let's follow what the lions do. If you ain't strong enough to defend your kids I'll kill them drive you out of the house and mate with your wife. If everyone wants to go the nature way let's do it the whole way. Rights are an abstract concept created by the human mind. It doesn't exist anywhere else besides maybe somewhere else in the galaxy if there's intelligent lifeforms like ourselves existing out there.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sure, they absolutely can be wrong.
There is nothing innate about them that means they're right.

Don't misconstrue what I'm saying though, I'd like their to be natural rights and all that jazz.
I just don't believe it exists.
Click to expand...

they do exist and they follow nature, no natural right can ever violate the natural rights of another person its not possible, but man made rights can.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Actually it's been that way since the beginning of time. Even in our Declaration of Independence our founding fathers stated:



Although our founding fathers recognized the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, tying them together, they also specifically separated them within the Constitution, wherein they limited the governments power to infringe upon those Natural rights, they also separated those rights from the governments power and the government from religion's power.
Click to expand...

At the time, "comes from human social nature via self preservation" was not nearly as convincing or popular as "comes from God or a Creator". Something "coming from God" was just the way people said "natural" in those days.

I believe the use of the terms God and Creator are temporal and not material.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Natural rights are ficticious.
There is no natural right (positive or negative) to anything.
Click to expand...

Very in-depth and well laid out argument. /sarcasm

BTW, a Positive Right is derived from the word "Posit" which means to be placed upon. It has nothing to do with Positive/Negative.
 
ernst barkmann said:
they do exist and they follow nature, no natural right can ever violate the natural rights of another person it not possible, but man made rights can.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are contingent on the majority of people and/or the ruler of said country allowing them to exist freely.
If there is a disagreement, then poof they are gone.

Natural rights exist in a time and place we do not, a world of enlightened people and enlightened leadership.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Don't misconstrue what I'm saying though, I'd like their to be natural rights and all that jazz.
I just don't believe it exists.
Click to expand...

I have an experiment with which you can gather countless iterations with 'n' in the billions:


Ask someone: would you give up your rights to life, expression or self defense to deny them to others?

You will answer 'no'. Your family will answer 'no'. Everyone, in every group, that you ever ask, will say 'no'. Only an insane person, rightly excluded from a sociological understanding, will say yes.

This survey provides empirical evidence that these agreements are socially natural as established by their universality. Why are they universal and thus socially natural? It's a matter of self preservation of the species.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well its clear you don't know history, "we the people" did not go the the constitutional convention, delegates picked by the state legislatures did and they created the constitution the whole purpose of the convention was to fix there articles of confederation...but instead the delegates created a constitution

the states each had state conventions with delegates to the state conventions chosen by the people to ratify the constitution.


so again.... the people did not create the constitution, delegates chosen by the people only ratified the constitution.

your history is horrible!
Click to expand...

If you can't understand the first three words of the constitution, then how do except to understand the rest of the document?

Your knowledge of history and philosophy is nil.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Natural rights are contingent on the majority of people and/or the ruler of said country allowing them to exist freely.
If there is a disagreement, then poof they are gone.

Natural rights exist in a time and place we do not, a world of enlightened people and enlightened leadership.
Click to expand...

sorry no, because if people made rights ,we would have rights which violate the rights of other people because man is self serving, and would create rights in his own interest, natural rights do not do that, they follow nature.

to give you and example, government creates privileges and they are violating natural rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom