• 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
Even by your definition, your inalienable rights are only inalienable in the US, where they are protected by government. In any other country they are not inalienable at all.

There are 154 constitutions in the world. Each of them specify different rights that belong to the people. You have no right to bear arms in England, nor in Australia, natural or otherwise. Not only is the right not 'inalienable', it doesn't exist full stop. If these rights are natural, why are they dependent on national lines which are clearly artificial?

You do know that the question of natural law or inalienable rights has nothing to do with local systems of law?
 
that's beyond stupid since unicorns are not the foundation of our law.

And apparently, you have no idea what an analogy is. :roll:
 
James Otis The Rights of the British Colonies

1763

Every British Subject born on the continent of America, or in any other of the British dominions, is by the law of God and nature, by the common law, and by act of parliament, (exclusive of all charters from the crown) entitled to all the natural, essential, inherent and inseparable rights of our fellow subjects in Great- Britain......


The end of government being the good of mankind, points out its great duties: It is above all things to provide for the security, the quiet, and happy enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. There is no one act which a government can have a right to make, that does not tend to the advancement of the security, tranquility and prosperity of the people.


The Rights of the Colonists

November 20, 1772

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.

All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.


The Declaration Independence of the thirteen united States of America July 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Amendment V


December 1791

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Last edited:
You do know that the question of natural law or inalienable rights has nothing to do with local systems of law?

On the contrary, that is the absolute crux of the issue.

If rights can exist under one system of law but not on the other hen they are not universal. If they are dependent on artificial boundary lines (where the difference is the system of law on each side of those boundary lines) then how can they be natural?
 
natural rights are part of the constitution

Amendment V

December 1791

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/QUOTE]
 
And apparently, you have no idea what an analogy is. :roll:

I know your arguments on this issue are without merit and the constant denials of a deity have no relevance to the issue
 
On the contrary, that is the absolute crux of the issue.

If rights can exist under one system of law but not on the other hen they are not universal. If they are dependent on artificial boundary lines (where the difference is the system of law on each side of those boundary lines) then how can they be natural?

I guess you could see it that way, if you want to use useless definitions nobody would normally use.
 
Even by your definition, your inalienable rights are only inalienable in the US, where they are protected by government. In any other country they are not inalienable at all.

There are 154 constitutions in the world. Each of them specify different rights that belong to the people. You have no right to bear arms in England, nor in Australia, natural or otherwise. Not only is the right not 'inalienable', it doesn't exist full stop. If these rights are natural, why are they dependent on national lines which are clearly artificial?

They are just as inalienable in other countries as they are here. The concept was recognized and written about extensively all the way back to ancient Greece and is found within the writings of such ancient philosophers as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle followed later by Cicero, the Stoics, and the great philosophers of the enlightenment, all living in societies in which people often did not have the liberty to exercise their natural rights, but knew that such rights existed nevertheless.

John Locke argued that man was born into a state of nature in which he was rational, tolerant, and happy and could enjoy the rights of life, liberty, and property unhindered. But some chose to threaten the liberties of others and therefore humankind entered into a social contract aka compact in which all would agree on how society would guarantee the rights of all. Locke believed that the only reason for the existence of government was to preserve natural rights and, by extension, man’s happiness and security.

Thomas Jefferson eloquently expressed such a concept with the Declaration of Independence that was intended to be affirmed by the Preamble of the Constitution and the way the U.S. government was structured.
 
They are just as inalienable in other countries as they are here. The concept was recognized and written about extensively all the way back to ancient Greece and is found within the writings of such ancient philosophers as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle followed later by Cicero, the Stoics, and the great philosophers of the enlightenment, all living in societies in which people often did not have the liberty to exercise their natural rights, but knew that such rights existed nevertheless.

John Locke argued that man was born into a state of nature in which he was rational, tolerant, and happy and could enjoy the rights of life, liberty, and property unhindered. But some chose to threaten the liberties of others and therefore humankind entered into a social contract aka compact in which all would agree on how society would guarantee the rights of all. Locke believed that the only reason for the existence of government was to preserve natural rights and, by extension, man’s happiness and security.

Thomas Jefferson eloquently expressed such a concept with the Declaration of Independence that was intended to be affirmed by the Preamble of the Constitution and the way the U.S. government was structured.

Even the 'natural rights' that people did not have the liberty to express have changed over cultural boundaries (whether over time, or over geographical areas). The 'natural rights' enumerated in the US constitution are specific to US people and were not the same 'natural rights' Plato talked about. The concept may have been the same but the actual rights they discussed were different.

The whole idea of natural rights presupposes a set, or list of rights that are intrinsic to the human condition. If that is the case then we certainly have not been able to unearth that true list. In fact, without some kind of divine intervention, the uncovering of that true list is only possible through informed discussion and critique, much like what happened at the constitutional convention. The problem with natural rights is then arises that as time goes on, we become more informed, and more able to have the discussions required to recognize what really should be a right and what really shouldn't.

In another 1000 years, as we mature as a species and as a people, the rights recognized as belonging to the American people might include more. If then rights we recognize as natural are dependent on the time period we live in, our culture and our level of knowledge about the world and each other then there's not point considering them natural at all.
 
complete nonsense. so it is your position that bill of rights was not intended to recognize and guarantee natural rights based on what the Declaration of Independence said versus what those who signed the DOI believed?

I don't even understand what you are trying to badly to say.

I said what I said. Why do you see the necessity to discard it and state what you want me to say in your words?
 
I just find it amazing that some pretend that the bill of rights was NOT INTENDED to guarantee such natural rights because the people who SIGNED (not the people who wrote the Bill of rights) the DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE supposedly did not actually believe what the DOI said

talk about a specious jump and a bogus attempt to limit what our constitutional rights are

You cannot guaranty rights which do not exist before you create them. But besides that obvious reality your convoluted statement makes no sense. For a change why don't you try something really radical - instead of you telling us what people believe about this issue - simply QUOTE what specific people said and let them speak for themselves instead of the dishonest charade of you reframing what you want them to say in your own words so you can create a straw man and then thump your chest when you brutalize it? That would indeed be refreshing for a change.
 
Even the 'natural rights' that people did not have the liberty to express have changed over cultural boundaries (whether over time, or over geographical areas). The 'natural rights' enumerated in the US constitution are specific to US people and were not the same 'natural rights' Plato talked about. The concept may have been the same but the actual rights they discussed were different.

The whole idea of natural rights presupposes a set, or list of rights that are intrinsic to the human condition. If that is the case then we certainly have not been able to unearth that true list. In fact, without some kind of divine intervention, the uncovering of that true list is only possible through informed discussion and critique, much like what happened at the constitutional convention. The problem with natural rights is then arises that as time goes on, we become more informed, and more able to have the discussions required to recognize what really should be a right and what really shouldn't.

In another 1000 years, as we mature as a species and as a people, the rights recognized as belonging to the American people might include more. If then rights we recognize as natural are dependent on the time period we live in, our culture and our level of knowledge about the world and each other then there's not point considering them natural at all.

Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness have existed since the mythical Garden of Eden. They have not changed in all the time humans have lived on Earth. The words we use to describe them may change, the way we administrate and control them via various forms of social structure and government may change, but the concepts themselves have not and will not change.
 
If I get stung in the neck by a bee, and I lose my ability to breathe, is the bee taking away my right to breathe or just the ability?
You just lose the ability. You have a right to breathe whether or not you are able to. A bee cannot take that away from you.
 
If you cannot excersize the right, the right still exists but you have been alienated from it. It is still a right but it is not an inalienable right.

That is incorrect. Your exercise of it has been stripped - the right itself has not. You retain the right to free speech when you are muzzled, you retain the right to free exercise of religion when you are imprisoned for your faith. You retain your rights when they are abused because the rights are not the same thing as the exercise of them.

If you are blocked from practicing religion freely, your right to free religious expression has been alienated from you.

That is incorrect. Your ability may have.

Perfect example to prove my argument. If my car is stolen, it's still my car, but I have been alienated from it. It has been taken from me. Also if my car were inalienable, I could never sell it or give it away. My car is therefor not inalienable.

On the contrary - your ownership of the car has not been stripped from you. You remain the rightful owner of the vehicle which someone else is now driving.
 
Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness have existed since the mythical Garden of Eden.

But the right to them necessarily has not.

Caveman had no right to pursue happiness when his life revolved around protecting his family from sabretooth tigers.

We humans fought for that right by coming together and building society.
 
But the right to them necessarily has not.

Caveman had no right to pursue happiness when his life revolved around protecting his family from sabretooth tigers.

We humans fought for that right by coming together and building society.

Of course caveman, as much as anybody else, had the right to pursue happiness in any way available to him. For him happiness might have been defeating the sabertooth tiger or finding supper for the day or just enjoying great weather or whatever. We Americans indeed did fight for the ability to pursue happiness as we chose to pursue it unrestricted from the dictate of monarch or church authority or anybody else who would deny us that choice.
 
I know your arguments on this issue are without merit and the constant denials of a deity have no relevance to the issue

You mean that thing that theists miserably fail to demonstrate? That deity? :roll: No wonder you're a libertarian, libertarianism is almost identical to religion in a lot of ways.
 
Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness have existed since the mythical Garden of Eden. They have not changed in all the time humans have lived on Earth. The words we use to describe them may change, the way we administrate and control them via various forms of social structure and government may change, but the concepts themselves have not and will not change.

So if I have a right to property, does that mean I can claim the moon? Can anyone? If not, why not? After all, you are saying we have a right to own things, to property. What property do people have a right to own exactly?
 
So if I have a right to property, does that mean I can claim the moon? Can anyone? If not, why not? After all, you are saying we have a right to own things, to property. What property do people have a right to own exactly?

Sure, you can claim the moon. Can you get yourself to the moon though?
 
So if I have a right to property, does that mean I can claim the moon? Can anyone? If not, why not? After all, you are saying we have a right to own things, to property. What property do people have a right to own exactly?

CHAPTER 16 | Document 23

James Madison, Property

29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

Property: James Madison, Property

there is more if you wish to read it.
 
Apparently someone thinks that pasting whole texts without much critiquesolves the metaphysical dilemma.
 
You mean that thing that theists miserably fail to demonstrate? That deity? :roll: No wonder you're a libertarian, libertarianism is almost identical to religion in a lot of ways.

For many it is exactly the same. they believe because they have made a choice to believe because they want to believe. Its sad.
 
Apparently someone thinks that pasting whole texts without much critiquesolves the metaphysical dilemma.

It is a substitute for having to present a position and then defend it. So its easier to let somebody who has been dead for two centuries do your talking for you.
 
Back
Top Bottom