Just because evil people and evil governments can take away or restrict natural rights does not mean they do not exist.
Yes
No
Just because evil people and evil governments can take away or restrict natural rights does not mean they do not exist.
Entitlement is a manmade concept and is allowed or authorized by human beings. Entitlement requires contribution and/or participation from others.Originally Posted by Unrepresented
Natural rights require no contribution or participation by anybody. All that is necessary for natural rights to be respected is non interference by others.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776
But if a right depends upon either your own strength or the sufferance of others in what sense can it be called a right? Moral ideals perhaps, but a right? I just don't see that.
If you can take something away, it's not very "inalienable."
"The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten." ~Napoleon
Tell me, if no one ever enslaved them what would they be doing more than likely? Also, how do you control the body of another human being?
My ownership can't be bought or sold. The entire concept of owning another human being is flawed. You can force someone into labor for you, but you can't own them like you can a car or piece of land.
And your entire post is absolutely correct. But note the use of the word "correct" - I used it because if it weren't for entitlements and certain legal obligations to help others, life would suck indeed.
For instance, there's the Law of the Sea: if you know of someone in distress, if you are able to do so without placing yourself and your crew in real danger, you are legally required to go save them.
So it is with police and doctors and so many professions - if one sees a problem, one must do something about it. If our society was such that there was no legal, moral, or social obligation to respond and help, again, life would suck indeed. And what most conservatives don't seem to get is that things like welfare, Medicaid, and so on are in reality an extension of the aforementioned obligations to help those in need or distress. To whom much is given, much is expected - that is and has for many generations described what we do.
But if someone doesn't want to live where there's any such legal, moral, or social obligation to help, I encourage them to all go and found their own little nation and see how that works out....
“To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn
"...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump
Folks, we're not talking about how the strong can abuse the weak.
This is known, just as it is known that the violent can murder the pacifistic, and the sneaky can steal from the careless. That doesn't make these things right, nor does simple might make right.
Natural rights is about what rights human beings ought to have and which ought to be respected by all because our very nature, needs and drives make them important.
The right to life: Humans, like all other living things, strive to continue to exist. Since that's something virtually all of us want and need, it is something we should respect for others so they will return that respect to us. A human life should not be taken without very compelling reason.
As all living things defend themselves as best they are able from attack, so do humans... thus the right to self-defense against unjust attack ought to be considered a natural right, as is the common means to that defense.
No sane person wants their body violated by unwanted forceful sexual acts perpetrated on their person, so again this should be respected as a natural right.
The right to property can get a bit more complex and nuanced, but it is not too much of a stretch to say that where a person has plowed and planted, they should have a right to reap and keep the produce of their labor. The details can be hashed out, but the general principle is there even in primitive cultures... if I made the bow, it is my bow unless I give or trade it to another.
Some people try to make out that it isn't a "natural right" if it can be taken away. BS. Natural rights are not scientific laws, but rather a recognition that the very nature of humanity implies that certain rights of each person ought to be respected and not infringed upon... particularly the Big Three, Life Liberty and Pursuit of happiness, from which the others derive.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
The inalienable means that it cannot be justly or ethically touched or interfered with or violated by government or others. That does not mean that the government or others WON'T take it away or interfere with it or violate it, but only that it is unjust and unethical and wrong to do so. The concept of the U.S. central government was that the people gave it the responsibility to recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people, among which were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or, as expressed in the Preamble, 'the blessings of liberty'. The government did not give the people such rights. The people already had them. The government was assigned the responsibility to make sure the people would not have those rights infringed.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776
No. Rights are what you can force.
Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote