- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
You don't understand the concept of evidence.
Ok, so who possesses and controls your body besides you? This should be fun..
You don't understand the concept of evidence.
Man didn't think up any of those things, but he did think up rights, like I said.
That never happened. Rights are immaterial. Nature is material. Rights were invented, not discovered.
We will just have to agree to disagree I guess. Because I agree with the Founders 100% when it come to the concept of natural rights.
No, I don't think you do. They weren't equating rights to physical laws or anything like that. They were saying that rights don't come from kings. They were advocating a better society, not magic.
Ask an actual slave if he disagrees with that sentiment.
Ok, so who possesses and controls your body besides you? This should be fun..
No, I don't think you do. They weren't equating rights to physical laws or anything like that. They were saying that rights don't come from kings. They were advocating a better society, not magic.
Again, I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right. Get to work.
When you do.
and yet they based the US Constitution .. Supreme law of the land.. on certain natural rights (as well as legal rights)
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.Name one natural right in the constitution. Also, if it were natural, wouldn't it not need to be in the constitution? If we had a natural right to free speech, wouldn't we not need the first amendment? And if we do need the first amendment to have that right, then it's a right we created, and has nothing to do with nature.
well, for me, such a test would comprise of reflecting whether or not a right is dependent on an external authority.I return to my original test. Please demonstrate some method for determining what is or is not a natural right.
Blind faith? That seems to be all you've got, that's why people laugh at libertarianism.
Blind faith? That seems to be all you've got, that's why people laugh at libertarianism.
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
our government was set up to protect rights... so it makes perfect sense that rights are enumerated in the Constitution (the inclusion of the 9th amendment provides protections against the arguments provided to NOT enumerate rights)
well, for me, such a test would comprise of reflecting whether or not a right is dependent on an external authority.
take the right to vote... without an external authority, the right to vote is rather absent.... the entire mechanism wouldn't exist.. it's entirely dependent on that external authority.
now take speech... does it take an external authority to permit you to feel entitlement to express yourself though speech?... or are naturally entitled to speak your mind due to your humanity?
that's not to say such rights can't be violated... they surely can... and the person that has their right violated surely understands that something is wrong when that happens ( which further points to the existence of natural rights)
property is an easy one to demonstrate.... simply go take a toy from a toddler and you'll be able to tell immediately what that lil human feels naturally entitled to:lol:
it seems to me you people are laughing at the United States, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the UN declaration of human rights, the social contract, Abolitionists,etc etc... and about 2000 years of philosophers whom have developed an understanding of rights.
Perhaps. Yet without ideals or goals, we are nothing more than savages are we not?
Good ideals and goals are good, bad ones can be used to justify savagery.
most of us are... most of us are all about enumerated rights as well.... though i'm curious, how do you know if you have a right to something or some action if it's not on a list for you?...if you aren't specifically told you have the right to do something by your community, society, or government, what would leave you to believe you have that right?I'm all about unenumerated rights.
umm.. rights are principles of freedom or entitlement.... so i don't know how to address this with you when you utterly deny even the most basic of definitions.I don't think rights have anything to do with feeling entitled to things. Plenty of people feel entitled to things that society doesn't determine people should have a right to. And it certainly takes external force to ensure that you aren't prevented from speaking your mind. I would call that community and society rather than authority. I don't think that rights are handed down from above, but are secured by a people. That takes a group. The only time when you can really claim rights without group consensus is if you are completely alone.
yeah.. denying rights exist and have no basis in reality or human nature is much more reasonable.:roll:It seems rather egocentric to suggest that every past society had these rights but they were being violated constantly, and that future societies won't have rights that we've never dreamed of. It also suggests that we are progressing towards some perfect society that was predetermined by nature, rather than improving upon and replacing flawed human constructs. Neither of those ideas seem at all reasonable.
nevermind.. you obviously don't understand when i say " feel".. nor do you want to.Again, rights are not about feelings. Rights are about not stopping people from doing things or empowering people to do things.
wow, that was compelling... natural rights don't exist because animals don't respect them.Ultimately, if nature granted us rights, they would apply in circumstances besides just human interaction. A hungry lion is never going to respect your right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. But other people will. People create rights. Each society creates its own rights.
most of us are... most of us are all about enumerated rights as well.... though i'm curious, how do you know if you have a right to something or some action if it's not on a list for you?...if you aren't specifically told you have the right to do something by your community, society, or government, what would leave you to believe you have that right?
umm.. rights are principles of freedom or entitlement.... so i don't know how to address this with you when you utterly deny even the most basic of definitions.
yeah.. denying rights exist and have no basis in reality or human nature is much more reasonable.:roll:
nevermind.. you obviously don't understand when i say " feel".. nor do you want to.
wow, that was compelling... natural rights don't exist because animals don't respect them.
rights are all about human interactions.... not interactions with the animal kingdom...
Perhaps. It would be hard to argue against the concept of natural rights as a collective good, though, given that they spring from the very needs and character of the human condition, and are things virtually all of us want.
And as I've argued before.... even if you believe they ARE a social construct, are those rights more secure if the general populace believes them "Natural Law" or ordained by God... or if everyone just says "oh well they're just social constructs..." (and therefore subject to change or discarding...)
I'd prefer they be viewed as sacrosanct in some manner... seems more secure to me.
When there are irrational claims made about those things, yes. There are a lot of people, particularly libertarians, who treat all of those things as though they were magic. They're not. There isn't an "understanding" of rights, there are simply claims made about rights. We have to go and look at those particular claims and see if they stand up rationally and logically. Most of the time, they don't. That doesn't stop rights from existing, it just means they aren't magical as a lot of people seem to think.