• 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
Nope. They can only prevent me from exercising it. They cannot take my life and then have a life they can use. They cannot take away my ability to think and then have an extra ability to use. They cannot take away my capacity to pursue happiness and have more happiness themselves. Nor can I sell or give any of those things to anybody else. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people so that they, for the first time in the history of the world, would be able to live in liberty and exercise those rights without interference.

To me that is such a simple concept. But for so many, it seems to be almost impossible to understand and appreciate.
You can be alienated from your life, that means you have no inalienable right to life.
 
So you're just going to ignore the crime of murder and keep living in fantasy land.

If that is what you got from my post, well that would explain a lot of the disconnect here.
 
You don't get to define words. We have dictionaries.

And I have used quite a few of them to support the definition of the words I use and have posted those definitions in this thread. Have you?
 
You can be alienated from your life, that means you have no inalienable right to life.

Maybe if you actually consulted some of those dictionaries you would understand how silly this statement actually is?
 
Maybe if you actually consulted some of those dictionaries you would understand how silly this statement actually is?

I just consulted a dictionary on the word 'inalienable' and it tells me that the subject is: "Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor". So we're caught in the 'is/ought' dilemma. Are we to believe that an 'inalienable right' cannot or merely should not be taken or given away? My reading of that definition is the former. What makes you think it is the latter?
 
Bad analogy.

It's perfectly valid. According to you, because my neighbor can't exercise his right to keep his nickel his right doesn't exist.
 
You can be alienated from your life, that means you have no inalienable right to life.

Again, you are continuing to confuse the right to the thing with the thing itself.


I realize Heinlein made this argument in Starship Troopers, which was an excellent book, and it sounded really smart when we were 14.... but we're not 14 anymore, and he was wrong.
 
Recognizing that someone's rights can be abused or repressed does not make them any less a right, and doesn't make the usurpation of it "right" either.



I don't particularly care what we call them, as along as we call them something that sounds absolute and not-to-be-infringed-upon. "Rights" worked for the Founders. We could also call them "Liberties the Oppression of Which Justify Instantly Killing Your Ass" and I'd be fine with that too, though it is a bit cumbersome.


Other things we could name them, instead of "rights"...

"**** I will ****ing Kill You Over."
"Ways that Nobody Including Government Should Ever **** With You."
"The Absolute Minimum Respect For Your Humanity That Everyone Should Always Show, On Pain Of Possible Death or Dismemberment."
Or the classic...
"Man I Wouldn't Do That **** If I Was You..."

:lol: :( I really need a button that forces everyone else to read a post before they are allowed to continue on the forum, similar to the "Rules" page when you get dinged.
 
Then you ought to be able to present a solid argument in proper logical form to explain it and demonstrate that it's real. Go ahead. We'll wait.

I tell you what. Let me just admit that I can't prove God's "real" from an objective or empirical standpoint, just like I can't prove little green men with ray guns occupy the cosmos even though I think we're not alone in the universe. Now, if you're going to insist that what we call "God," or what philosophers envision as some sort of constant "force" in the universe that we're incapable of measuring or understanding, doesn't exist, then show your hand now, please. I'm betting you can't. So instead of us wasting everyone's time on this point let me just call my god the "God of Reason" who tells me killing millions of people is wrong.
 
Again, you are continuing to confuse the right to the thing with the thing itself.


I realize Heinlein made this argument in Starship Troopers, which was an excellent book, and it sounded really smart when we were 14.... but we're not 14 anymore, and he was wrong.
I have that book on Audible, so much better than the movie, but I was thinking of Man's Serch For Meaning. Maybe if you read some non-fiction once in a while you would have a better understanding of the world.
 
It's perfectly valid. According to you, because my neighbor can't exercise his right to keep his nickel his right doesn't exist.
You equate an inanimate tangible object with an intangible philosophical concept? Seriously?

Well, ok, carry on then, but you'll have to do so without me. I have no time or desire to engage in continued tomfoolery.
 
Last edited:
I have that book on Audible, so much better than the movie, but I was thinking of Man's Serch For Meaning. Maybe if you read some non-fiction once in a while you would have a better understanding of the world.

1. The movie was atrocious. It was so bad, it was good-bad. The sequels were even exponentially worse/better for that aspect alone.

2. Dude. I am halfway done with a second masters degree. I have walls of non-fiction. Literally half of my job is to read non-fiction, and the other half is to understand the world and be able to explain it. Fiction is my escape from non-fiction.
 
Turtle - for many of us who do not believe in natural rights it has nothing at all to do with any attitude about religion. What it has to do with is a couple of very undeniable historical facts:

1- natural rights came about as a theory because the political philosophers were searching for a counter weapon to the divine right of kings. It was simply a way of offering a trump card to divine right.

2- when Jefferson used it in the Declaration of Independence it was used merely as justification for the very real actions they were taking as a direct slap in the face of the British throne and their authority. Even Jefferson did not believe the actual words he wrote as he lived a life completely opposite of his pompous statements.

3- the Constitution and state constitutions create rights that may have been partly inspired by some peoples beliefs - but those beliefs do nothing in and of themselves as it is people acting through their created government that create the rights we have.

4 - If not one person in the world or our nation today even remembered the term natural rights - we would still have the same rights we have because of the national and state constitutions. So they are irrelevant.

People can go to church all day and night for all I care. It matters not to me . This is NOT about hatred of religion.

complete nonsense. Jefferson certainly believed HE, and those Like him had natural rights
 
2. Dude. I am halfway done with a second masters degree. I have walls of non-fiction. Literally half of my job is to read non-fiction, and the other half is to understand the world and be able to explain it. Fiction is my escape from non-fiction.

Your posts don't show that.
 
But you're the one differentiating "natural" rights from other kinds of rights. If there is no difference, if you cannot demonstrate that they're real, then just drop the "natural" part. You cannot justify it, why should anyone take it seriously?

you don't seem to understand why I find natural rights to be so important. they are part of a philosophy that exists. trying to impose one concept of existence on "things" that are not defined that way is stupid. Does say "roman catholicism" exist? or angry atheism? sure they do-but not the same way say Iron ore or helium gas exists. same with Natural rights vs. a concrete block
 
Your posts don't show that.

:yawn: then report them again for no reason.


You continue to confuse the right to something with the thing itself. When this is pointed out to you, either you ignore it, or you shift to a personal attack.



673.jpg
 
Natural Rights can't be given by the state, so if the state gave you a given right, that right is not a Natural Right. More likely it's a Civil Right.

While natural rights aren't granted by the state, they can be upheld and enforced by the state. According to our founding document, securing natural rights is the principal purpose of civil government. Living is a natural right. Voting is a civil right. Both can create cause for a person to seek remedy or damages in a civil court.
 
You equate an inanimate tangible object with an intangible philosophical concept? Seriously?

No, I equate my neighbor's right to keep his nickel with a philosophical concept called "the natural right to property," which Locke wrote about in his Second Treatise.
 
I tell you what. Let me just admit that I can't prove God's "real" from an objective or empirical standpoint, just like I can't prove little green men with ray guns occupy the cosmos even though I think we're not alone in the universe. Now, if you're going to insist that what we call "God," or what philosophers envision as some sort of constant "force" in the universe that we're incapable of measuring or understanding, doesn't exist, then show your hand now, please. I'm betting you can't. So instead of us wasting everyone's time on this point let me just call my god the "God of Reason" who tells me killing millions of people is wrong.

It doesn't matter how you frame your definition of gods or natural rights, if you cannot demonstrate that either of them exist in any meaningful way in the real world, then they are just illusions. That is what we're pointing out to you. It rests entirely on your shoulders to demonstrate such things are real. If you cannot, and in both cases, you freely admit that you cannot, then nobody is obligated in any way, shape or form to take you seriously. I don't care what you call it. I care what you can demonstrate. You've got nothing. Just be honest about it already.
 
you don't seem to understand why I find natural rights to be so important. they are part of a philosophy that exists. trying to impose one concept of existence on "things" that are not defined that way is stupid. Does say "roman catholicism" exist? or angry atheism? sure they do-but not the same way say Iron ore or helium gas exists. same with Natural rights vs. a concrete block

No, I don't understand why you think natural rights exist at all. What you've got there is what we call wishful thinking. It's a fantasy. It's something that appeals to you on a purely emotional level, not on an intellectual one. You have no rational justification for these claims you make but it makes you feel good to keep making them. That's why the whole concept is laughable and why nobody is taking you seriously.
 
No, I don't understand why you think natural rights exist at all. What you've got there is what we call wishful thinking. It's a fantasy. It's something that appeals to you on a purely emotional level, not on an intellectual one. You have no rational justification for these claims you make but it makes you feel good to keep making them. That's why the whole concept is laughable and why nobody is taking you seriously.

dismissed as psychobabble. the emotion is all on you dude. and as to taking people seriously?" LOL-the angry atheist nonsense wears old
 
It doesn't matter how you frame your definition of gods or natural rights, if you cannot demonstrate that either of them exist in any meaningful way in the real world, then they are just illusions. That is what we're pointing out to you. It rests entirely on your shoulders to demonstrate such things are real. If you cannot, and in both cases, you freely admit that you cannot, then nobody is obligated in any way, shape or form to take you seriously. I don't care what you call it. I care what you can demonstrate. You've got nothing. Just be honest about it already.

You know, twenty-three centuries of Western Civilization going back to the Stoics should count for something. Over the course of that time, some pretty smart logicians and philosophers have presented their ideas on moral systems that make a lot more sense than yours, which basically seems to be there is no morality, there are no ethics, there are no logical rules to govern behavior--there only "is." I'd rather be wrong and go down like General Custer in a hail of arrows by hitching my wagon to someone like Cicero than be right and live in a reality in which human life is perceived as being nothing short of worthless. Fortunately, I don't think I'm wrong--even if I can't prove it!
 
You blew your whole argument right there. That's exactly the point myself and others are making, and you essentially just confirmed it, though you don't want to.
If someone takes your life they can and have taken every single thing you claim they cannot take.
You are no longer able to do any of them. You want simple? That's simple.



A dead person has the natural right to remain silent. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom