• 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
The use of the term God, referring to anything, indicates a belief in a higher power. Added to the term Creator, I don't think you can argue that they were leaving this open to a non-religious interpretation. These were religious men who created a government based on Judeo-Christian ideals. They believed in allowing others to freely practice the religion of their choice, but that doesn't change the nature of THEIR beliefs and the impact that those beliefs had on our government. They are saying that these rights are granted by a higher power. Thus, use of the DOI to justify 'natural rights' that do not involve a higher power is the same as playing "Born in the USA" at a patriotic gathering: The user just doesn't understand or admit to the meaning of the words, and is trying to pretend that the very clear language carries ambiguity that was just not intended.

i have stated a higher power, which is what founders wanted to convey, because they removed the direct idea of religion in the document by removing the word "sacred", leaving the document more subjective.


We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

the government of the u.s. is not religious at all, as one of the most religious men of the founders tells us, john adams in the Treaty of Tripoli

the nation as a whole was built for a religious and moral people.
 
slaves were considered "property" and not people

Yes, but there's evidence Jefferson regarded slaves as human, that he had at least a few moral qualms about whether slavery was just, and this posed a prophetic problem for the new republic:

With the morals of the people, their industry also is [300] destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.—But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one’s mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is [301] abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.

http://thefederalistpapers.integrat...-Jefferson-Notes-On-The-State-Of-Virginia.pdf

Notes on the State of Virginia, QUERY XVIII: The particular customs and manners that may happen to be received in that State?
 
Go ahead if you think the definitions I posted for both law dictionaries are not what they say.

i gave you Bouvier's Law Dictionary ....1856 Edition there 1914 version is the same...both have inalienable and unalienable listed separately, with different meanings

i will post the links of 1828 Websters....both have inalienable and unalienable listed separately, with different meanings

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Online Edition

Blacks law 2nd 1910...both have inalienable and unalienable listed separately, with different meanings

Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed

when you get into more modern interpretations of the words, they are put together.
 
Yes, but there's evidence Jefferson regarded slaves as human, that he had at least a few moral qualms about whether slavery was just, and this posed a prophetic problem for the new republic:

well i was not arguing that point:), i was just pointing out how the people of that time got around the principles of the DOI...having slavery
 
i gave you Bouvier's Law Dictionary ....1856 Edition there 1914 version is the same...both have inalienable and unalienable listed separately, with different meanings

i will post the links of 1828 Websters....both have inalienable and unalienable listed separately, with different meanings

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Online Edition

Blacks law 2nd 1910...both have inalienable and unalienable listed separately, with different meanings

Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed

when you get into more modern interpretations of the words, they are put together.

I just checked the Webster's link you posted and again 'inalienable' and 'unalienable' mean exactly the same thing and are interchangeable. I don't find the definitions at all in the Black's link provided here.

I think you may be defending something you thought you saw but maybe read wrong? I think we are pretty much on the same page on this other than our understanding of the definitions of those two words.
 
I just checked the Webster's link you posted and again 'inalienable' and 'unalienable' mean exactly the same thing and are interchangeable.

I think you may be defending something you thought you saw but maybe read wrong? I think we are pretty much on the same page on this other than our understanding of the definitions of those two words.



remember when i talked about the word "legally"....

with inalienable you can consent by your own will to wave your rights, with unalienable you cannot wave anything.

a good source of info

https://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/

time is getting short for me i must go, have a good day:), and to everyone else as well
 
remember when i talked about the word "legally"....

with inalienable you can consent by your own will to wave your rights, with unalienable you cannot wave anything.

a good source of info

https://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/

time is getting short for me i must go, have a good day:), and to everyone else as well

I cannot think of a single unalienable/inalienable right that we can waive for any reason which is why such rights are unalienable/inalienable. All we can do is be denied the ability to ACT on those rights in a public way--and that can be via legal means or by illegal means--or we can choose not to ACT on those rights in a public way and again that can be via legal means or not. Again I think we are probably in agreement but differ a bit in the definitions.

Anyhow I have a truckload of groceries to help unload and put away here, so you have a good day too.
 
so what did the 2A recognize given the supreme court in Cruikshank held that the 2A recognized a pre-existing right

that is why your argument is specious and you think that the way to obliterate the 2A is to pretend its foundation does not exist

How many times have we been through the same field of mud?

Cruikshank expressed an opinion about a belief. That does NOT make that belief suddenly turn into reality. Of course, you should be aware of that since it has not changed with the rising and setting of a few suns since the pastime you were explained the same thing.
 
1) the Bill of rights CREATED NO RIGHTS

2) But MERELY recognized pre-existing rights

3) that are not dependent upon the constitution for their existence

now now Turtle - do I have to go into the vault and bring out your own words where you admit that the only place pre-existing rights existed was in somebody's head and they protected nobody? Because I will be happy to do that if it helps you remember your own admission on this.
 
Last edited:
How many times have we been through the same field of mud?

Cruikshank expressed an opinion about a belief. That does NOT make that belief suddenly turn into reality. Of course, you should be aware of that since it has not changed with the rising and setting of a few suns since the pastime you were explained the same thing.


no it stated what every honest person who studies the constitution understands

the Bill of Rights was intended by the writers of said document to RECOGNIZE pre-existing rights

those who try to pretend that the BOR is something else are generally those who do not like the limitations the BOR imposes on the federal government
 
now now Turtle - do I have to go into the vault and bring out your own words where you admit that the only place pre-existingrights existed was in somebody head and they protected nobody? Because I will be happy to do that if it helps you remember your own admission on this.

you were unable to understand what I was saying. and continue to demonstrate that lack of understanding. once the founders adopted the bill of rights, the rights they assumed existed became part of the legal framework of this country

the natural rights the founders recognized determine the scope and intent of the bill of rights. You don't like that scope and that intent so you pretend that arguing "natural rights" don't exist allows you to limit the scope and intent of the BOR
 
History tells us what happened to them.

Well, at least one helped win the war by wining and dining in the French court and in the process became a great statesman, garnered tremendous wealth, founded a university, died an old man on July 4th, and has his picture on the nickel and two-dollar bill. I'd call that a happy ending.

The USA's 'founding fathers' fought the Revolutionary War to secure their own rights and freedom. Not for the rights and freedom of the women and slaves that they controlled.

You're forgetting to mention the average Americans--farmers, cobblers, smiths, merchants, including slaves and even some free blacks, who "fought the war," often in wretched conditions. And let's not forget the "camp followers" (Women in the American Revolution).
 
so what did the 2A recognize given the supreme court in Cruikshank held that the 2A recognized a pre-existing right

that is why your argument is specious and you think that the way to obliterate the 2A is to pretend its foundation does not exist

Just because people think this is true doesn't mean it actually is, just like people who believe in gods doesn't prove that gods actually exist. When are libertarians going to understand that simple fact? You have to actually prove the existence of a natural right, you can't just keep claiming it is so. Proof matters. When do we get that?
 
well i was not arguing that point:), i was just pointing out how the people of that time got around the principles of the DOI...having slavery

The so called 'people of the time' did NOT write the statement of natural rights in the Declaration. Thomas Jefferson did. And Jefferson clearly and unmistakably said it applied to ALL MEN and we know that Jefferson considered Africans held as slaves as human beings and men.

Thus, Jefferson did not even believe the statement himself and live a long life doing just the opposite of the hollow words he put on paper to awe the world with meaningless nonsense.
 
Gentle disagreement. A 'natural' or 'unalienable' or 'inalienable' or 'God given' right cannot be taken away.

Read once again what I wrote. Only the grantor of a right can alienate it. If rights are "God given" and "God" can't take back something he gave then he's really not God, is he? :confused:
 
1) the Bill of rights CREATED NO RIGHTS

No, it simply wrote down the rights that society had decided would exist within the new nation.

2) But MERELY recognized pre-existing rights

Rights created by society, yes.

3) that are not dependent upon the constitution for their existence

They are codified into the Constitution as an official recognition of rights society had, at the time, decided upon.

4) and which only prevents Federal action

And how's that working out for you?
 
Just because people think this is true doesn't mean it actually is, just like people who believe in gods doesn't prove that gods actually exist. When are libertarians going to understand that simple fact? You have to actually prove the existence of a natural right, you can't just keep claiming it is so. Proof matters. When do we get that?

It is not a matter of what libertarians understand. It is very much a matter of what reality they have adopted to keep safe their self imposed belief system and the lengths they will go through to live in an alternate reality that is divorced from the same truths and historical fact that the rest of us live in.

You will never get your proof requested because it does not exist and they know it well.
 
Read once again what I wrote. Only the grantor of a right can alienate it. If rights are "God given" and God can't take back something he gave then he's really not God, is he? :confused:

There is no reason to think that any gods exist. Imaginary friends are pointless. Try again.
 
It is not a matter of what libertarians understand. It is very much a matter of what reality they have adopted to keep safe their self imposed belief system and the lengths they will go through to live in an alternate reality that is divorced from the same truths and historical fact that the rest of us live in.

You will never get your proof requested because it does not exist and they know it well.

For the same reason we never get the proof for gods that they claim exists, they know it's imaginary and are doing everything they can to skirt the issue of their own abject failures.
 
you were unable to understand what I was saying. and continue to demonstrate that lack of understanding. once the founders adopted the bill of rights, the rights they assumed existed became part of the legal framework of this country

the natural rights the founders recognized determine the scope and intent of the bill of rights. You don't like that scope and that intent so you pretend that arguing "natural rights" don't exist allows you to limit the scope and intent of the BOR

that is all just so much your own lipstick on your own pig in your own sty. And in the end its still a pig.

In other words Turtle - its still just a belief and all the laws in the world do not change that it is still a belief. The rights given by the Constitution are very much real. Any belief that they come from God or nature is just fantasy no matter how many laws bow down and worship before that same altar.
 
Just because people think this is true doesn't mean it actually is, just like people who believe in gods doesn't prove that gods actually exist. When are libertarians going to understand that simple fact? You have to actually prove the existence of a natural right, you can't just keep claiming it is so. Proof matters. When do we get that?

you completely miss the point. the issue is not whether natural rights exist-in the same manner that a tree or a car exists-but why natural rights are such an important part of our legal fabric

look, i get your almost fanatical hatred of religion and your attempts to obliterate religion from your world. but that is not relevant here.
 
that is all just so much your own lipstick on your own pig in your own sty. And in the end its still a pig.

In other words Turtle - its still just a belief and all the laws in the world do not change that it is still a belief. The rights given by the Constitution are very much real. Any belief that they come from God or nature is just fantasy no matter how many laws bow down and worship before that same altar.

translation-you don't like the correct interpretation of the Bill of rights

why not just come out and say it?
 
This topic seems to have popped up in a few threads recently so I thought I'd put this together. Put simply do you believe in the concept of natural rights? That is to say rights that are "not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable".

Personally I don't. I think that Hobbes had it right when he intimated that the only 'natural right' that a human being possesses is the right to strive for their own survival. Everything else exists only at the sufferance of your own strength or the kindness of others. It is part of what makes civilization so essential and so valuable, because by creating a society we attempt to lift ourselves out of that war of all against all. This allows for freedom of speech, property rights, press freedoms, freedom of worship, etc. Absent organized society these 'rights' would be purely theoretical.
I do not. It's a great theory, but it's only that, a theory. Reality is that the only "rights" you have are those which people stronger than you allow you to have.
 
Back
Top Bottom