View Poll Results: Do You Believe in Natural Rights?

Voters
87. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    36 41.38%
  • No

    51 58.62%
Page 50 of 100 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 994

Thread: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

  1. #491
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    169,813

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    And you ignore the militia part
    no I don't

    what is funny is statists thinking that "well regulated militia" somehow has any relevance to the peoples' right being recognized
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  2. #492
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    He has argued that if somebody is prevented from exercising his/her inalienable rights, then such rights do not exist.
    I don't argue that the right doesn't exist at all, the right is just not a Natural Right. It might be a Human Right or a Civil Right, but if it can be taken away then it's not a Natural Right. This is about what kind of right it is, not if the right exists at all.
    Last edited by Jerry; 05-19-15 at 11:49 PM.

  3. #493
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Okay. And if I understand you correctly your argument is thus:

    1. Natural rights require that they be "inalienable."

    2. If natural rights require that they be inalienable, then one must demonstrate the existence of a right that is incapable of being alienated in order to even consider the existence of a natural right.

    3. Since no one has demonstrated the existence of a right that can't be alienated, natural rights do not exist.

    Am I close to correctly stating your argument? If I'm off base, please correct me by restating the argument.
    It's a lot simpler than that. Natural Rights by definition cannot be taken away or given up, so any right which can be taken away or given up is not a Natural Right. It may still be a Human Right or a Civil Right, it's just not a Natural Right.

    Life and liberty can be taken away or given up, which means life and liberty are not Natural Rights.

  4. #494
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    as i stated the constitution has natural rights and privileges ...ie civil rights /legal rights ....and that is all.
    That's the rub...the Constitution says something is a Natural Right, but the thing it names very clearly is not a Natural Right, which means the Constitution is wrong. The DOI is wrong. The founders were wrong.

    And yes stateists like heymarket will exploit that, but it's true regardless.

  5. #495
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    84,269

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you don't support the 2A as written

    you pretend that the term "shall not be infringed" does not apply to individuals. You then claimed that anything short of a total ban of all guns is not an infringement. You also claimed that if someone can own ONE gun, then their ability to ENJOY their 2A rights cannot be infringed. Later, you claimed that the founders actually wrote this provision with the INTENT that the federal government could limit restrict or impede ownership.

    so I reject your specious claim that you support the 2A AS WRITTEN
    Since your own interpretation is an extremist one which ignores why the words were written in the first place and the purpose of it and the other provisions of the Constitution that impact it - your rejection of my support for the Second Amendment is both irrelevant and worthless.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #496
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    84,269

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    you jumped into a conversation and then complained about what i was addressing to another person, which he and i were discussing.

    you jumped as if i was making a general statement, which i was addressing something he said to me.
    Everyone who wants to participate in a thread is free to do so and is thus part of that conversation as it is all public and open to all. If you want a PRIVATE conversation with another poster, the board has a PM service they provide. If you do not know how to use it I will be happy to guide you through.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #497
    Sage
    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,537

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    It's a lot simpler than that. Natural Rights by definition cannot be taken away...
    Let me stop you there. ANY right can be "taken away" in the sense that a person can be deprived of it. The issue, though, is whether someone who isn't the grantor of the right can "take it away" in the ethical or legal sense. In the case of natural rights, we're talking about a moral or ethical state of affairs. Perhaps you don't believe in morality; you just assume that life exists and there's no point to it. Whatever rights you get come only from a beneficial human. If that's the case, then our discussion is over, because no amount of moral proselytizing on my part will sway you. But from a legal standpoint if the state says, for example, that you have a right to be repaid for a debt and I just say, "Screw it. I'm not repaying you," according to your logic your right to repayment ends there. I mean, if you're going to argue that someone other than the grantor of a right can "take it away" then, well, I just took your right away.
    Нава́льный 2018

  8. #498
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Let me stop you there. ANY right can be "taken away" in the sense that a person can be deprived of it.
    Right, exactly, and that means they are not inalienable rights, because they can all be taken away.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    The issue, though, is whether someone who isn't the grantor of the right can "take it away" in the ethical or legal sense.
    "In an ethical sense" describes a Human Right under a social contract, and "in a legal sense" describes a Civil Right under a government.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    In the case of natural rights, we're talking about a moral or ethical state of affairs.
    That's a right under civil law, a Civil Right. That is not a Natural right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Perhaps you don't believe in morality; you just assume that life exists and there's no point to it.
    A moral is a self-imposed rule, I have self-imposed rules, like only drinking on my days off (which are few and far between), therefore I believe in and practice morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Whatever rights you get come only from a beneficial human.
    Rights for being human are Human Rights. My Human Rights are not Natural Rights because all of my Human Rights can be taken away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    But from a legal standpoint if the state says, for example, that you have a right to be repaid for a debt and I just say, "Screw it. I'm not repaying you," according to your logic your right to repayment ends there.
    You keep mixing up the 3 kinds of rights. Here you're talking about a Civil Right to compensation for work, you have stopped talking about Natural Rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    I mean, if you're going to argue that someone other than the grantor of a right can "take it away" then, well, I just took your right away.
    The only difference between a Natural Right and a Human Right is that a Natural Right can not be taken away by anyone nor by any means. If it can be taken away, it is therefore by definition not a Natural Right.

  9. #499
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    169,813

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Since your own interpretation is an extremist one which ignores why the words were written in the first place and the purpose of it and the other provisions of the Constitution that impact it - your rejection of my support for the Second Amendment is both irrelevant and worthless.
    see that proves my point

    my position is consistent with the founders
    consistent with EVERY document generated by the founders that even remotely touches on the right
    consistent with what those who believed in natural rights would say
    consistent with the main body of the constitution that NEVER EVER delegated any authority to the federal government to interfere with what kind of small arms private citizens owned
    consistent with the environment of the 1780s and 1790s

    you on the other hand have never ever supported your claim that "shall not be infringed" actually was intended to allow all sorts of interference with said natural right
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  10. #500
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    84,269

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    see that proves my point

    my position is consistent with the founders
    consistent with EVERY document generated by the founders that even remotely touches on the right
    consistent with what those who believed in natural rights would say
    consistent with the main body of the constitution that NEVER EVER delegated any authority to the federal government to interfere with what kind of small arms private citizens owned
    consistent with the environment of the 1780s and 1790s

    you on the other hand have never ever supported your claim that "shall not be infringed" actually was intended to allow all sorts of interference with said natural right
    Your position is iconsistent with reality and the actual words of the Amendment.

    Here is my position:

    The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.




    Now who agrees with me?




    Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
    Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.




    And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.

    You trying to justify your belief about guns based on another belief - natural rights - means nothing since it is only a theory and cannot be proven to be true or real beyond a belief.
    Last edited by haymarket; 05-20-15 at 09:44 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Page 50 of 100 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •