• 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!

Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

Do You Believe in Natural Rights?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 41.4%
  • No

    Votes: 51 58.6%

  • Total voters
    87
People who don't like the limitations the Bill of RIghts imposes on the federal government try to undermine those restrictions with all sorts of silly diversions

like actually having a sense of humor.
 
Maybe you ought to watch the video then. :roll:

if i posted video of a 19 year old kid, and his point was to say to you....natural law is real, natural rights exist.......you would be laughing, well that all i can do with this video of yours.

when you can give me legal information that says natural law /rights do not exist, then post it.
 
So if I have a right to property, does that mean I can claim the moon? Can anyone? If not, why not? After all, you are saying we have a right to own things, to property. What property do people have a right to own exactly?

You have the right to property that you ethically or legally acquired. A pretty simple concept actually.
 
like actually having a sense of humor.

trying to limit our rights and expand the power of government is not something freedom loving Americans find humorous
 
No, this guy is Napoleon. Here's that video you wanted a link to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5c-oOxphvg

I watched the first five minutes and enjoyed it. I gotta tell you that if you produced this thing you have the patience of Job. I really do not know how you can go step by step through the mental illness that so much of right libertarianism is and still do it with calm and restraint.

I thought the points about"natural rights floating magically around in the ether" was terrific. Great phrase that I may steal from time to time. Like wise for the unicorn assumption comparison which is the essence of the way libertarians argue.

I hope to see the rest later if the ball game ends early and the Tigers hopefully win..
 
trying to limit our rights and expand the power of government is not something freedom loving Americans find humorous

Nobody can limit rights that you don't have in the first place.
 
At what point does an action that you can do become a 'natural right'? (e.g. throwing stones at fish)

At what point does an action that you can no longer do not become a 'natural right'? (e.g. as someone said, claim the moon)

Only that which requires no contribution or participation by any other can be considered a natural right. Only that which you cannot receive from another nor give away can be considered a natural right. Property itself is not a natural right. But so long as nobody else's rights are infringed, to use legally and ethically acquired property as you choose to use it is a natural right.
 
Not at all, because choosing not to engage in a right because of potential deterrents does not make said right inalienable.
Choosing not to excersize a right is not the same as someone blocking you from using it.
 
Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness have existed since the mythical Garden of Eden. They have not changed in all the time humans have lived on Earth. The words we use to describe them may change, the way we administrate and control them via various forms of social structure and government may change, but the concepts themselves have not and will not change.
Right, they change with the civil structure as opposed to remaining consistent regardless of the civil structure. This makes life, liberty & property civil rights, not inalienable natural rights.

Please note, the 14th Amendment provides that a person may be so deprived of their rights through Due Process. If these were inalienable rights, no process could deprive you of them.
 
Last edited:
Nobody can limit rights that you don't have in the first place.

this post will be marked and noted for further reference.


since you have already in the past claimed the constitution created rights for the people.

The 19th effectively gave females the right to vote. There is no doubt about that in the rational mind of any thinking person who knows history.

It most certainly does and I already gave you several examples including rights contained in the Sixth Amendment and the various right to vote provisions.

Everything in that article confirms that the right to vote was given to women by the 19th Amendment. This proves you wrong beyond any doubt. For you to deny it - yet again - is simply a sign of your refusal to accept reality and fact because it would destroy your extremist self imposed belief system.
 
Right, they change with the civil structure as opposed to remaining consistent regardless of the civil structure. This makes life, liberty & property civil rights, not inalienable natural rights.

incorrect....civil rights/ legal rights, are privileges in constitutional law...because they require an action from government.

natural rights require no government action.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,<-------natural rights... without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Last edited:
Nobody can limit rights that you don't have in the first place.

again this is a silly and irrelevant comment. we reference natural rights because they were recognized by the founders in the Bill of rights. People like you pretend that the Bill of rights is extremely limited and the Bill of rights' prohibitions on the actions of the federal government are extremely narrow. We who do not worship the federal government understand that the founders believed in natural rights and intended to prevent the federal government from raping those natural rights. They did this two ways

1) they NEVER EVER gave the federal government the power to interfere with those rights in the main body of the constitution and when some of the founders were worried about dishonest politicians in the future pretending that the federal government had any power not specifically denied it,

2) they created the Bill of rights which was a negative restriction and restatement of that fact

You can pretend all you want that we don't have those right but the Bill of Rights proves you are incorrect.

so does the fact that the federal government was never properly delegated the power to so interfere with them
 
you at in the pacific ocean on a ship hundreds of miles from other land, and a island were to appear out of nowhere, and you step ashore on it and no one is there but you, can you claim it as your property....... of course you can


......

You can claim it as such, just as someone could claim a car that just happened to be sitting in a parking spot with the keys in it, but that doesn't mean you own it unless someone else or yourself are able to defend that property as yours. For most people, who live in societies, those societies recognize certain boundaries of ownership. But that is because, as a collective, the people in those societies recognize the ownership rights. It really is a might makes "rights" thing in that case because if you and/or those who actually do accept your ownership of that property cannot defend it, then it can easily become the other person's if they are strong enough to defeat you.
 
You have the right to property that you ethically or legally acquired. A pretty simple concept actually.

No, actually it isn't. Ethics are subjective and legality is relative to the place you live and who you view as having authority over you. It is completely possible (no matter how improbable) that we could have aliens come to our planet tomorrow and claim ownership of the entire world, and every living thing on it, including us. Who gets to tell them no? Us? Well what if we are unable to defend "our" planet? What if it turns out that their species terraformed our planet billions of years ago and they really did technically own it?
 
You can claim it as such, just as someone could claim a car that just happened to be sitting in a parking spot with the keys in it, but that doesn't mean you own it unless someone else or yourself are able to defend that property as yours. For most people, who live in societies, those societies recognize certain boundaries of ownership. But that is because, as a collective, the people in those societies recognize the ownership rights. It really is a might makes "rights" thing in that case because if you and/or those who actually do accept your ownership of that property cannot defend it, then it can easily become the other person's if they are strong enough to defeat you.

sorry that not even the same.

your car is in among property, in society.

my island is not part of either, so your example is bad.
 
sorry that not even the same.

your car is in among property, in society.

my island is not part of either, so your example is bad.

Your car is recognized as your property for only one of two reasons. Either a) society recognizes it as such and is willing to defend that recognition for you or b) you are capable of preventing anyone who would otherwise want to claim the car/use the car from doing so. And the second one presupposes that either society doesn't concern itself with such issues or you are even capable enough to prevent society from relieving you of ownership to that car.

The island could already be claimed by someone else. You simply don't know. And someone else could come along and challenge your claim to the island. If your claim isn't recognized by anyone else, then how would anyone know that you claimed ownership of the island?
 
Sure, you can claim the moon. Can you get yourself to the moon though?

Sure, if I had enough money/resources to build a rocket to take me there. But do I have to do so to have ownership of something? You don't have to physically possess something to claim ownership of it.
 
Your car is recognized as your property for only one of two reasons. Either a) society recognizes it as such and is willing to defend that recognition for you or b) you are capable of preventing anyone who would otherwise want to claim the car/use the car from doing so. And the second one presupposes that either society doesn't concern itself with such issues or you are even capable enough to prevent society from relieving you of ownership to that car.

you need to stick with the island not your car.



if i find an island and it is not in the jurisdiction of any nation, and no person has made claim to it.......it is mine.
 
you need to stick with the island not your car.

if i find an island and it is not in the jurisdiction of any nation, and no person has made claim to it.......it is mine.

Says who? You? How long do you maintain "ownership" of that island?
 
Says who? You? How long do you maintain "ownership" of that island?

i do, and if i am an american and and my life is threaten, it is the duty of the u.s.federal government to protect me.

just like they protect americans on foreign soil or at sea.
 
Last edited:
i do, and if i am an american and and my life is threaten, it is the duty of the u.s.federal government to protect me.

just like they protect americans on foreign soil or at sea.

Only because American laws recognizes you as a citizen and maritime law recognizes certain claims on islands that are not already claimed. However, all of that necessitates that those laws exist and that recognition exists, which are man made and subject to change at any time. So your claim on the land means absolutely zilch without the recognition of others saying that they agree to your claim and them being willing to defend you and your claim.
 
Only because American laws recognizes you as a citizen and maritime law recognizes certain claims on islands that are not already claimed. However, all of that necessitates that those laws exist and that recognition exists, which are man made and subject to change at any time. So your claim on the land means absolutely zilch without the recognition of others saying that they agree to your claim and them being willing to defend you and your claim.

it is the duty of the u.s. to protect all citizens abroad and at sea from threats.

if i was on an island, which i own and not within the jurisdiction of the u.s. or any other nation and i and others were say fighting off pirates who landed on the island and will kill me, and i could get a radio message to the u.s. federal government for help. ..it is their duty to respond.

just like the people who were sailing off the coast of Somalia, the u.s. responded.
 
it is the duty of the u.s. to protect all citizens abroad and at sea from threats.

if i was on an island, which i own and not within the jurisdiction of the u.s. or any other nation and i and others were say fighting off pirates who landed on the island and will kill me, and i could get a radio message to the u.s. federal government for help. ..it is their duty to respond.

just like the people who were sailing off the coast of Somalia, the u.s. responded.

Only because the US has agreed that it is its duty to do so. The citizens of the US agree that they should defend other US citizens. The US doesn't have to agree to that. If enough people said "let them take care of themselves", what exactly could you do?
 
Only because the US has agreed that it is its duty to do so. The citizens of the US agree that they should defend other US citizens. The US doesn't have to agree to that. If enough people said "let them take care of themselves", what exactly could you do?

wrong the principles of the u.s. state that the rights of citizens are to be secure, and this nation was founded on those principles, and they are recognized by u.s. federal law.
 
No, this guy is Napoleon. Here's that video you wanted a link to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5c-oOxphvg

The critic leaves me unsatisfied. For example, he makes reference to the "fact" that humans are programmed by evolution to value the survival of themselves and their offspring. But why would offspring value the survival of elderly grandparents who are long past the age of having kids? Where does something like non-romantic love or altruism enter the picture, and what's the biological imperative that furthers this behavior? Why would a person ever place the interests of a complete stranger above his own, especially one who lives in a different country or doesn't even speak the same language? And how would a failure of the altruist to act accordingly impact the survival of the human race? :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom