• 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
Usually the name calling begins when your opponent has run out of arguments. I take it as a sign that he's growing tired and is about to bail to another thread.

For sure there are exceptions, but almost always when the argument turns personal and/or they start throwing in a lot of unrelated stuff to deflect from the argument, or they keep a circular argument that has been adequately refuted going, you know they're out of ammo. That's when I can smugly pat myself on the back and declare myself the winner. :) (And mercy, some make it so easy to do that.)
 
because i just pointed out to the other poster.... that the original DOI was more religious then one which is in the national archives...

That DOES NOT change the language nor the meaning of the actual statement in the Declaration. You are grasping at straws and then attempting to build a cathedral with them.
 
It appears you're still confused.
On the contrary, I have perfect clarity.

First of all, a principle can be a fact. Secondly, "due process" is a legal doctrine that bears little relation to the concept of a natural right, so when you try to blend the two you're mixing apples with oranges. Also, you're attempting to redefine the context and understanding of "inalienable" as it's been understood by philosophers going back at least to the ancient Greeks. Finally, when you assert that one person can, as a matter of fact, kill another, you're referring to a natural law, not a right.

Now, I can't empirically or objectively prove that killing 50 or 60 million people in the span of just a few years like Mao did was wrong, and, for the sake of argument, I'm willing to concede that. On the other hand, when you claim that there is no inalienable, natural right to life the burden of proof falls to you. On what basis do you make that claim? :confused:
Keep reading my every post from that, to this. It's very simple.

In order to be a Natural Right, the right in question must be immune to being taken away from you, nor can you willingly give it up. It's yours regardless.

Name any right and we'll put it to the question.
 
For sure there are exceptions, but almost always when the argument turns personal and/or they start throwing in a lot of unrelated stuff to deflect from the argument, or they keep a circular argument that has been adequately refuted going, you know they're out of ammo. That's when I can smugly pat myself on the back and declare myself the winner. :) (And mercy, some make it so easy to do that.)

When I pat myself on the back is when I see people trying to squash a discussion because it hits far too close to home for their comfort. The idea that far right views are not reality based and are a form of mental disorder seems to be one of those things that some here would rather not face.
 
They don't need to recieve my life.

My life needs only to be alienated from me.

So you didn't understand the definition of 'unalienable'. Oh well. That does explain a lot.
 
When I pat myself on the back is when I see people trying to squash a discussion because it hits far too close to home for their comfort. The idea that far right views are not reality based and are a form of mental disorder seems to be one of those things that some here would rather not face.

It was my distinct impression that this discussion was not about anybody's mental disorder but was a discussion of unalienable or natural rights. But trying to deflect it to a discussion of mental disorder definitely reinforces my opinion about who won the argument. :)
 
It was my distinct impression that this discussion was not about anybody's mental disorder but was a discussion of unalienable or natural rights. But trying to deflect it to a discussion of mental disorder definitely reinforces my opinion about who won the argument. :)

And what if the views expressed can be explained by a willful mental delusion taken on by the poster or holder?
 
So you didn't understand the definition of 'unalienable'. Oh well. That does explain a lot.
I've demonstrated perfect understanding. If all you wish to do at this point is act like an ass, maybe you should take another sabaticle from DP.
 
And what if the views expressed can be explained by a willful mental delusion taken on by the poster or holder?

Doesn't matter who holds the views or how they are expressed. Whether the views themselves are right or false, can be defended or only denied. That is what matters.
 
Last edited:
Does matter who holds the views or how they are expressed. Whether the views themselves are right or false, can be defended or only denied. That is what matters.

I agree somewhat with that. But when the supposed defense is based solely upon belief and that belief system is clearly NOT reality based and their views that are being forwarded are obviously far fringe positions that are not even shared by a single Supreme Court Justice in 225 years - that tells you volumes about the irrational nature of them. And it is right and appropriate to make that delusional belief system part of the discussion since that is what is producing the views in the first place.
 
Does matter who holds the views or how they are expressed. Whether the views themselves are right or false, can be defended or only denied. That is what matters.

statists pretend that if they "prove" natural rights don't exist, they can then make the specious claim that the Bill of Rights really don't say what the founders intended the BOR to say.
 
statists pretend that if they "prove" natural rights don't exist, they can then make the specious claim that the Bill of Rights really don't say what the founders intended the BOR to say.

When did you convert to ANARCHY my friend?
 
On the contrary, I have perfect clarity.]

It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. If you don't begin forming some sense of a rational argument I'm going to have to move on.

In order to be a Natural Right, the right in question must be immune to being taken away from you, nor can you willingly give it up.

And why is that? That's not a proof. It's an opinion.
 
I agree somewhat with that. But when the supposed defense is based solely upon belief and that belief system is clearly NOT reality based and their views that are being forwarded are obviously far fringe positions that are not even shared by a single Supreme Court Justice in 225 years - that tells you volumes about the irrational nature of them. And it is right and appropriate to make that delusional belief system part of the discussion since that is what is producing the views in the first place.

We haven't been discussing SCOTUS decisions in any year. And SCOTUS is not the authority on the definition of natural rights either.

Whether or not natural rights exist is the topic being discussed. Somebody who thinks it is not reality based should expect to be challenged on that just as much as is the person who says it is reality based. Those who can point to the background, the history, and the scholarly definitions are winning this debate. Those who simply go 'no, no, no, natural rights don't exist' have so far not been able to articulate a reasoned or credible argument for that point of view or they change the definition to something they can more easily attack. And when the argument is further weakened by trying to deflect the discussion to paint their opponent as mentally 'off' or delusional or some other uncomplimentary adjective, it is pretty clear who the winner of the debate is.
 
When did you convert to ANARCHY my friend?

I fail to see what that has to do with my post.

I was referring to people who attack the existence of natural rights so as to pretend that "shall not be infringed" actually means that the founders thought the federal government should be able to limit the natural right of free men to be armed up to a complete ban on firearms

telling the federal government that the Bill of Rights prevents such limitations on the rights the founders all believed free citizens had, is hardly anarchy

I suggest you look up anarchy and you will then realize it means a complete lack of government, rather than a "well regulated" and limited government that the founders wanted and I hope we return to
 
statists pretend that if they "prove" natural rights don't exist, they can then make the specious claim that the Bill of Rights really don't say what the founders intended the BOR to say.

Well, I don't know what their motives are though that might be as good an explanation as any for why a person would be so passionate about denying the existence of natural rights. I honestly can't comprehend how any American could deny that, but apparently a lot do. Just looking at the straw poll here, more deny it than embrace the concept. And that is a really scary thing to me.

I wish DP could develop a policy that only those who post in a thread could participate in the poll. We might get more useful polling information that way?
 
And why is that?
Because that's what the linked sources I posted say a Natural Right is.

That's not a proof. It's an opinion.
It's not a proof or an opinion, it's an initial condition.

Proof is when we cite suicide as evidence that you can willingly give up your right to life, this demonstrating that your right to life is not inalienable, and therefore not a Natural Right. The suicide rate is the proof. The murder rate is the proof. The accidentall death rate is the proof. The death penalty is the proof.

If the right to life were a Natural Right and thus inalienable, no one would ever die from anything other than natural causes.

Even in only a legal context, if the right to life were inalienable then Due Process could never strip you of it, because it's inalienable, it cannot be taken away from you.
 
Last edited:
Of course people have all kinds of Human Rights, like breathing, and Civil Rights, like voting, but this thread is not about any of those.

This thread is about Natural Rights, spicificly and only.

The definition of Natural Right requires that the right be inalienable. If a right is alienable, it may still be a right of some kind, but it is not a Natural Right.

Well, breathing isn't a human right. It's a human ability. I know the libertarians really don't know the difference between the two, but still...
 
Well, breathing isn't a human right. It's a human ability. I know the libertarians really don't know the difference between the two, but still...
Well I was thinking more along the lines of not having to pay a sort of air tax for breathing the City's air, that air is a kind of public use thing, but I didn't want to go into much detail.
 
Well I was thinking more along the lines of not having to pay a sort of air tax for breathing the City's air, that air is a kind of public use thing, but I didn't want to go into much detail.

A city could, presumably, charge an air tax and nobody could really stop them, assuming they had the military clout to do it. The idea that this thing is a right and nobody can say otherwise is clearly untrue.
 
It's not a proof or an opinion, it's an initial condition.

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.
 
We haven't been discussing SCOTUS decisions in any year. And SCOTUS is not the authority on the definition of natural rights either.

SCOTUS is indeed the authority on the Constitution and its meaning and application. And when persons posting here make statements about the Constitution, its meaning and its application it is indeed relevant, proper and appropriate to compare those statements in light of what the Supreme Court says. This is especially true when a poster makes a very extreme statement about the Constitution stating that the federal government is not given any power all over people.

Whether or not natural rights exist is the topic being discussed. Somebody who thinks it is not reality based should expect to be challenged on that just as much as is the person who says it is reality based
.

And it is NOT reality based but rather is a belief based upon pure faith and acceptance.

Those who can point to the background, the history, and the scholarly definitions are winning this debate.

Unless someone here can actually prove with verifiable evidence what nobody in the last 350 plus years has been able to do - namely that natural rights is fact and not just a theory - there is no winning.

Those who simply go 'no, no, no, natural rights don't exist' have so far not been able to articulate a reasoned or credible argument for that point of view or they change the definition to something they can more easily attack.

It is incumbent upon those asserting a positive to prove that positive. Those denying the existence cannot prove that such a thing does NOT exist because that would mean proving a negative. I cannot prove that there are NOT three inch monkeys made of blue flame which play basketball underneath the surface of Uranus. That claim must be substantiated with proof to be accepted as fact.

And when the argument is further weakened by trying to deflect the discussion to paint their opponent as mentally 'off' or delusional or some other uncomplimentary adjective, it is pretty clear who the winner of the debate is.

You do not like the subject of right libertarianism being called into question due to its denial of reality and the implications that has for the holder of such beliefs. And your distaste to expose that hard and cold possibility does not dictate who "wins" any debate.
 
I fail to see what that has to do with my post.

In your post you were insulting and disparaging of persons you call STATISTS. So you do not believe in the necessity of the state then Turtle? You reject the state and the government necessary because you have converted to anarchy?
 
SCOTUS is indeed the authority on the Constitution and its meaning and application. And when persons posting here make statements about the Constitution, its meaning and its application it is indeed relevant, proper and appropriate to compare those statements in light of what the Supreme Court says. This is especially true when a poster makes a very extreme statement about the Constitution stating that the federal government is not given any power all over people.

.

And it is NOT reality based but rather is a belief based upon pure faith and acceptance.



Unless someone here can actually prove with verifiable evidence what nobody in the last 350 plus years has been able to do - namely that natural rights is fact and not just a theory - there is no winning.



It is incumbent upon those asserting a positive to prove that positive. Those denying the existence cannot prove that such a thing does NOT exist because that would mean proving a negative. I cannot prove that there are NOT three inch monkeys made of blue flame which play basketball underneath the surface of Uranus. That claim must be substantiated with proof to be accepted as fact.



You do not like the subject of right libertarianism being called into question due to its denial of reality and the implications that has for the holder of such beliefs. And your distaste to expose that hard and cold possibility does not dictate who "wins" any debate.

Everything here has already been discussed in some detail. I'll just refer you to my previous posts. Circular arguments are really not my thing.
 
For what purpose? The document that is official is the one under discussion. Again - that is REALITY. You really have trouble dealing with REALITY and want to keep coming back to alternate realities that you subscribe to.
no the problem is you cannt follow conversation you get into between other people. i stated tothe other posters the orginal draft was more relgious, then you jump in why i dont know...wait i do....just because you saw me post something.
 
Back
Top Bottom