- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,793
- Reaction score
- 5,123
- Location
- Pindostan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
A dead person has the natural right to remain silent. :roll:
How do you know? Are you his lawyer?
A dead person has the natural right to remain silent. :roll:
You put your finger right on the folly: if a thing cannot be taken away, you don't need to secure it. Natural Rights by definition cannot be taken away, thus we don't need a government to secure them.While natural rights aren't granted by the state, they can be upheld and enforced by the state. According to our founding document, securing natural rights is the principal purpose of civil government.
No it is not, because through murder or suicide you can be alienated from your right to live.Living is a natural right.
Correct, voting (for Congress and Senate, but not President) is a right granted by the Constitution that you would not otherwise have.Voting is a civil right.
That your right to life can be damaged proves it is not inalienable and thus not a Natural Right.Both can create cause for a person to seek remedy or damages in a civil court.
It doesn't matter how you frame your definition of gods or natural rights, if you cannot demonstrate that either of them exist in any meaningful way in the real world, then they are just illusions. That is what we're pointing out to you. It rests entirely on your shoulders to demonstrate such things are real. If you cannot, and in both cases, you freely admit that you cannot, then nobody is obligated in any way, shape or form to take you seriously. I don't care what you call it. I care what you can demonstrate. You've got nothing. Just be honest about it already.
How do you know? Are you his lawyer?
A little late to be joining the thread, and probably will not add much, but here goes.This topic seems to have popped up in a few threads recently so I thought I'd put this together. Put simply do you believe in the concept of natural rights? That is to say rights that are "not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable".
Personally I don't. I think that Hobbes had it right when he intimated that the only 'natural right' that a human being possesses is the right to strive for their own survival. Everything else exists only at the sufferance of your own strength or the kindness of others. It is part of what makes civilization so essential and so valuable, because by creating a society we attempt to lift ourselves out of that war of all against all. This allows for freedom of speech, property rights, press freedoms, freedom of worship, etc. Absent organized society these 'rights' would be purely theoretical.
Rights only truly exist if infringement can be prevented...
All dead people have the right to remain silent, it's the only right that they can use.
All dead people have the right to remain silent, it's the only right that they can use.
How about the right to peaceably assemble? It's not like they're going to riot or anything.
Rights exist regardless of whether or not they are granted. People have a right to their own life even if someone kills them and nobody cares. Organized society and civilization is so essential and so valuable not because it creates rights but because defends them.This topic seems to have popped up in a few threads recently so I thought I'd put this together. Put simply do you believe in the concept of natural rights? That is to say rights that are "not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable".
Personally I don't. I think that Hobbes had it right when he intimated that the only 'natural right' that a human being possesses is the right to strive for their own survival. Everything else exists only at the sufferance of your own strength or the kindness of others. It is part of what makes civilization so essential and so valuable, because by creating a society we attempt to lift ourselves out of that war of all against all. This allows for freedom of speech, property rights, press freedoms, freedom of worship, etc. Absent organized society these 'rights' would be purely theoretical.
You're talking about Human Rights, and I agree, but this thread is about Natural Rights.Rights exist regardless of whether or not they are granted. People have a right to their own life even if someone kills them and nobody cares. Organized society and civilization is so essential and so valuable not because it creates rights but because defends them.
what do you mean by "real"?
I just consulted a dictionary on the word 'inalienable' and it tells me that the subject is: "Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor". So we're caught in the 'is/ought' dilemma. Are we to believe that an 'inalienable right' cannot or merely should not be taken or given away? My reading of that definition is the former. What makes you think it is the latter?
If someone prevents you from exercising a right, you therefore do not have it, because if you had the right you could do it no matter how much they don't like it.I have now posted numerous definitions on the word from numerous sources. And all are in agreement. Something that is not 'subject to' means it cannot be done. You cannot sell, barter, or give away an unalienable right nor can anyone take it from you. You can agree not to exercise an unalienable right and somebody might prevent you from exercising it, but you still have it nevertheless.
I have now posted numerous definitions on the word from numerous sources. And all are in agreement. Something that is not 'subject to' means it cannot be done. You cannot sell, barter, or give away an unalienable right nor can anyone take it from you. You can agree not to exercise an unalienable right and somebody might prevent you from exercising it, but you still have it nevertheless.
If someone prevents you from exercising a right, you therefore do not have it, because if you had the right you could do it no matter how much they don't like it.
If some posts a no-gun sign in their private building, I therefore do not have the right to carry there. Since my right to self defence was blocked, that proves the right to self defense is not a Natural Right.
And yet someone can prevent you from exercising it too. This is one of those abstruse arguments like whether a tree falling in a deserted forest really makes a noise. Can a right that cannot be exercised be said to exist? Can it be said to be inalienable if one can be prevented from exercising it? if one argues that it can, then the concept of a right becomes something altogether hypothetical.
How about the right to peaceably assemble? It's not like they're going to riot or anything.
Then you are changing the meaning of 'in-' or 'unalienable' from meaning 'is not subject to being taken away from of given away by the possessor' to 'should not be taken away from or given away by the possessor'. All you have to do is read the dictionary definitions to know that.Yes an unalienable right can and does exist whether or not it is exercised for any reason.
Now you appear to be quibbling, because something entirely 'conceptual' IS hypothetical.And it is not the lest bit hypothetical. You cannot buy or sell or barter or give away or receive your concept of what it is to pursue happiness.
In a hypothetical sense, yes.Somebody else may prevent you from doing it or you may choose not to do it, but it remains yours nevertheless.
Sorry, I zoned out here because what your constitution says has no relevance to me.The Constitution was written so that the federal government was prohibited from preventing you from doing it and was prohibited from interfering with any of your other unalienable rights.
complete nonsense. Jefferson certainly believed HE, and those Like him had natural rights
No, I don't understand why you think natural rights exist at all. What you've got there is what we call wishful thinking. It's a fantasy. It's something that appeals to you on a purely emotional level, not on an intellectual one. You have no rational justification for these claims you make but it makes you feel good to keep making them. That's why the whole concept is laughable and why nobody is taking you seriously.
what do you mean by "real"?
The nonsense is in your refusal to wreathe words that Jefferson actually wrote and which others signed - ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and have rights including LIBERTY.
How you or anyone else can pretend to deny that basic reality is beyond understanding.