• 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
TurtleDude said:
that has nothing to do with reality. You pretend that Jefferson's failure to include blacks some how means he didn't believe that WHITE MEN (citizens) had natural rights
Click to expand...
Funny thing is, you and I have debunked him multiple times on natural rights yet, he's resistant to facts, logic and history. Ironic given his alleged background.
 
TurtleDude said:
that has nothing to do with reality. You pretend that Jefferson's failure to include blacks some how means he didn't believe that WHITE MEN (citizens) had natural rights
Click to expand...

Jefferson said that ALL MEN had rights including liberty. He did not say white men of property only had rights.
 
Ockham said:
Funny thing is, you and I have debunked him multiple times on natural rights yet, he's resistant to facts, logic and history. Ironic given his alleged background.
Click to expand...

The only real FACT about natural rights is that it is an unprovable theory which one believes because they want to believe it. Nobody can PROVE it exists with FACTS.

But perhaps there is a special limited edition RIGHT LIBERTARIAN version of the Declaration of Independence which has scratched out the offending ALL MEN and replaced it with WHITE MEN OF PROPERTY? After all, right libertarians reject lots of reality in favor of their own alternate universe in which beliefs and axioms replace facts and known reality so it would not surprise me to find out they have also selectively changed anything which might prove they are full of stuff and nonsense - like the actual text of the Declaration of Independence.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Jefferson said that ALL MEN had rights including liberty. He did not say white men of property only had rights.
Click to expand...

and that has ZERO, nada, ZILCH to do with the scope of the rights in the bill of rights

you seem to think that because Jefferson didn't include slaves, that somehow means that Jefferson (who did NOT WRITE the Bill of RIghts) didn't believe in natural rights for citizens

completely disingenuous and bogus argument

you have argued that these founders (as opposed to the authors of the BOR) really didn't believe in natural rights and thus the natural rights recognized in the BOR are much less a restriction on your beloved federal government than us freedom advocates assert.

a completely unsupported jump you made and its a completely specious argument
 
haymarket said:
The only real FACT about natural rights is that it is an unprovable theory which one believes because they want to believe it. Nobody can PROVE it exists with FACTS.

But perhaps there is a special limited edition RIGHT LIBERTARIAN version of the Declaration of Independence which has scratched out the offending ALL MEN and replaced it with WHITE MEN OF PROPERTY? After all, right libertarians reject lots of reality in favor of their own alternate universe in which beliefs and axioms replace facts and known reality so it would not surprise me to find out they have also selectively changed anything which might prove they are full of stuff and nonsense - like the actual text of the Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...

Does Roman Catholicism or Islam exist?

you are trying to apply one version of existence to a philosophy improperly in order to pretend that the bill of rights do not prevent the sort of government idiocy you crave
 
haymarket said:
The only real FACT about natural rights is that it is an unprovable theory which one believes because they want to believe it. Nobody can PROVE it exists with FACTS.
Click to expand...

You're right. No one can prove you can't give away your right to pursue happiness or that you'd attempt to exercise it in a state of nature. I just accept it as common sense. (I could have called it "self-evident.") Perhaps you can prove the contrary with facts? I'd bet my left nut you can't. :2wave:
 
haymarket said:
But perhaps there is a special limited edition RIGHT LIBERTARIAN version of the Declaration of Independence which has scratched out the offending ALL MEN and replaced it with WHITE MEN OF PROPERTY?
Click to expand...

I just accept that when Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" he spoke the truth and meant ALL MEN, even if he was a hypocrite. Look at this sentence from the passage I quoted earlier from his Notes on the State of Virginia:

No man will labour for himself who can make another (Another what? Man? :shock:) labour for him.
Click to expand...
 
Ahlevah said:
I just accept that when Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" he spoke the truth and meant ALL MEN, even if he was a hypocrite. Look at this sentence from the passage I quoted earlier from his Notes on the State of Virginia:
Click to expand...
I think all men are created equal, and I don't think that has anything to do with Natural Rights. Don't let hey market derail you like that.
 
Andalublue said:
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.

Now you appear to be quibbling, because something entirely 'conceptual' IS hypothetical.

In a hypothetical sense, yes.

Sorry, I zoned out here because what your constitution says has no relevance to me.
Click to expand...

Well our dictionary definitions must have no relevance to you either so far as the definitions of inalienable/unalienable and hypothetical go. I know it is difficult for non-Americans to understand the concept of unalienable rights as the basis of what true liberty is because you've never experienced it. Our Founders understood it quite well and a lot of us Americans understand it quite well today too. Unfortunately we seem to have a sizable group of Americans with no clue about what that was all about, who resent those who do, and who would dismantle it in a heartbeat. And that is a tragedy.
 
tomkat364 said:
The belief in a higher power is exactly what I had referenced. They do not specify a Christian God, or Hindu god, or any other specific god. But they definitely are not conveying 'natural rights' as existing outside of a theistic worldview. There is a constant problem with the term religion, as this more accurately means a group belief, and I should not have been using religion to describe the content of the DOI. So I will restate my post: Using the DOI to justify a belief in natural rights existing without a theistic/diety/higher power misses a key component of the writers' conviction. And since 'the nation as a whole was built for a religious and moral people', it is impossible to ignore that influence on the Constitution and DOI. An atheist or agnostic simply cannot embrace the preamble to the DOI without contradicting their own worldview.
Click to expand...

i will not deny that influence.

the u.s. constitution itself is not a religious document ...however... it does embody the "principles" of the DOI, which those principles are recognized by u.s. federal law.

this part is very much correct.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Well our dictionary definitions must have no relevance to you either so far as the definitions of inalienable/unalienable and hypothetical go. I know it is difficult for non-Americans to understand the concept of unalienable rights as the basis of what true liberty is because you've never experienced it.
Click to expand...
Oh please! Save such self-righteous nonsense for those from less, rather than more democratic nations.

Our Founders understood it quite well and a lot of us Americans understand it quite well today too. Unfortunately we seem to have a sizeable group of Americans with no clue about what that was all about, who resent those who do, and who would dismantle it in a heartbeat. And that is a tragedy.
Click to expand...
I see you decide to resort to rhetoric rather than grapple with the untenable, illogical position you've talked yourself into. No amount of brain-twisting semantics can maintain your double-think. You may dismiss Hobbes, Bentham, Burke and Rousseau, but in the absence of any refuting argument, your position is 'nonsense on stilts'.

You also seem to be falling into the Appeal to Nature fallacy, since it seems evident that you believe that there is something 'naturally' superior about a 'right' being deemed 'natural'. As we've seen, the fact that your natural rights' 'inalienable' nature is purely conceptual, apt to be denied in reality, there appear to be no rights that are in practice 'inalienable'. Please let's not continue with this semantic debate on the definition of 'inalienable' since however much you wish it to be, your definition is not universally, or even predominantly accepted. And let's stay away from bringing the US DoI or Constitution into this as it lends no authority to an argument, given that it's not a universally accepted statement of the real nature of rights.
 
haymarket said:
The so called 'people of the time' did NOT write the statement of natural rights in the Declaration. Thomas Jefferson did. And Jefferson clearly and unmistakably said it applied to ALL MEN and we know that Jefferson considered Africans held as slaves as human beings and men.

Thus, Jefferson did not even believe the statement himself and live a long life doing just the opposite of the hollow words he put on paper to awe the world with meaningless nonsense.
Click to expand...

guy you seem to be looking for argument from me at every turn....but again BOOM! TO YOU.

The Rights of the Colonists

November 20, 1772


I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.

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.
 
Andalublue said:
Oh please! Save such self-righteous nonsense for those from less, rather than more democratic nations.

I see you decide to resort to rhetoric rather than grapple with the untenable, illogical position you've talked yourself into. No amount of brain-twisting semantics can maintain your double-think. You may dismiss Hobbes, Bentham, Burke and Rousseau, but in the absence of any refuting argument, your position is 'nonsense on stilts'.

You also seem to be falling into the Appeal to Nature fallacy, since it seems evident that you believe that there is something 'naturally' superior about a 'right' being deemed 'natural'. As we've seen, the fact that your natural rights' 'inalienable' nature is purely conceptual, apt to be denied in reality, there appear to be no rights that are in practice 'inalienable'. Please let's not continue with this semantic debate on the definition of 'inalienable' since however much you wish it to be, your definition is not universally, or even predominantly accepted. And let's stay away from bringing the US DoI or Constitution into this as it lends no authority to an argument, given that it's not a universally accepted statement of the real nature of rights.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I will express myself and my understanding of the way things are as I choose and if you find that unacceptable or offensive, I suggest you put me on ignore--there is that capability here at DP is there not?--or just scroll over my posts. I prefer to discuss topics with those who can do so by making a better argument and who don't think being personally insulting and critical is valid debate. The topic is whether we believe in natural rights. I have addressed the topic and have made my argument for why I hold the opinion that I do.

I suppose a person saying that he does not believe in natural rights because they do not exist is a valid reason for holding that opinion. But that alone wouldn't get a person very far in a formal debate.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I cannot think of a single unalienable/inalienable right that we can waive for any reason which is why such rights are unalienable/inalienable. All we can do is be denied the ability to ACT on those rights in a public way--and that can be via legal means or by illegal means--or we can choose not to ACT on those rights in a public way and again that can be via legal means or not. Again I think we are probably in agreement but differ a bit in the definitions.

Anyhow I have a truckload of groceries to help unload and put away here, so you have a good day too.
Click to expand...

one thing i want to point out is the words are not very much different...one incapable of being alienated....and one not lawfully alienated.

"can i search you car"......"sure go ahead"........i just waive my right.

i hope you brought me some fruit, i need some fresh strawberries.
 
You and I do not have a power within us to create a right, therefore it is impossible for us to elect someone to office and grant them a power to create rights, since we do not possess the power to begin with"
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
one thing i want to point out is the words are not very much different...one incapable of being alienated....and one not lawfully alienated.

"can i search you car"......"sure go ahead"........i just waive my right.

i hope you brought me some fruit, i need some fresh strawberries.
Click to expand...

Well we can split hairs over whether the definition of each word is different, but the dictionary and encyclopedia draw no such distinction but are pretty clear that it is the same word--just spelled differently.

We cannot buy, barter, steal, or otherwise receive an unalienable right from somebody else nor can we sell, barter, or give an unalienable right to anybody else. That is what makes the condition that is identified as a 'natural right' unalienable. But you are right that somebody can prevent us from exercising such a right as we choose and it was to prevent the central government from having any authority to do that which formed the basic concept of the U.S. Constitution.

And you are right that we can waive our right to exercise our unalienable rights and people do that all the time via social contract. For example, everybody gives up their ability to use their property in certain ways to ensure that everybody's property values are secured--such choices are for the mutual benefit of all. Or the illustration that you used in waiving my right to personal privacy to allow search of my car because I consider reasonable laws for the protection, safety, and aesthetic enjoyment of all to also be of mutual benefit of all.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Well we can split hairs over whether the definition of each word is different, but the dictionary and encyclopedia draw no such distinction but are pretty clear that it is the same word--just spelled differently.

We cannot buy, barter, steal, or otherwise receive an unalienable right from somebody else nor can we sell, barter, or give an unalienable right to anybody else. That is what makes the condition that is identified as a 'natural right' unalienable. But you are right that somebody can prevent us from exercising such a right as we choose and it was to prevent the central government from having any authority to do that which formed the basic concept of the U.S. Constitution.

And you are right that we can waive our right to exercise our unalienable rights and people do that all the time via social contract. For example, everybody gives up their ability to use their property in certain ways to ensure that everybody's property values are secured--such choices are for the mutual benefit of all. Or the illustration that you used in waiving my right to personal privacy to allow search of my car because I consider reasonable laws for the protection, safety, and aesthetic enjoyment of all to also be of mutual benefit of all.
Click to expand...


well ok, but their is clearly two definitions into past....today both words are lumped together.

indentured servitude......Miranda warning.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well ok, but their is clearly two definitions into past....today both words are lumped together.

indentured servitude......Miranda warning.
Click to expand...

I am saying that the words inalienable and unalienable are synonyms. They both mean exactly the same thing.

When used as an adjective with 'rights', they become a specific identifiable concept and puts such unalienable or inalienable or natural or God-given rights--all can be used interchangeably--into its own context different from any other and with its own definition.

It is just like the adjective 'social' has a specific definition and the noun 'contract' has a specific definition. But when you say 'social contract' it is its own term with its own context and definition different from any other.

Same with 'inate' and 'characteristic', each with a specific dictionary definition, but when you say 'inate characteristic', the phrase has its own definition different from each word defined by itself.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am saying that the words inalienable and unalienable are synonyms. They both mean exactly the same thing.

When used as an adjective with 'rights', they become a specific identifiable concept and puts such unalienable or inalienable or natural or God-given rights--all can be used interchangeably--into its own context different from any other and with its own definition.
Click to expand...

And yet you haven't been able to work out the is/ought problem, at all. You merely bumble on regardless, as if it wasn't the fundamental flaw in your argument that it is.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am saying that the words inalienable and unalienable are synonyms. They both mean exactly the same thing.

When used as an adjective with 'rights', they become a specific identifiable concept and puts such unalienable or inalienable or natural or God-given rights--all can be used interchangeably--into its own context different from any other and with its own definition.

It is just like the adjective 'social' has a specific definition and the noun 'contract' has a specific definition. But when you say 'social contract' it is its own term with its own context and definition different from any other.

Same with 'inate' and 'characteristic', each with a specific dictionary definition, but when you say 'inate characteristic', the phrase has its own definition different from each word defined by itself.
Click to expand...

well we will have to have a small disagreement here on the word, but the difference of opinion will remain academic anyway.
 
Andalublue said:
And yet you haven't been able to work out the is/ought problem, at all. You merely bumble on regardless, as if it wasn't the fundamental flaw in your argument that it is.
Click to expand...

As I said, I prefer to discuss such things with people who are capable of doing it without being personally insulting and who can offer a reasoned counter argument. But again, have a pleasant day or evening where you are.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well we will have to have a small disagreement here on the word, but the difference of opinion will remain academic anyway.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Again I think we are close to being on the same page. Splitting hairs over semantics doesn't really move the discussion forward.
 
AlbqOwl said:
As I said, I prefer to discuss such things with people who are capable of doing it without being personally insulting
Click to expand...
You might want to check on how insulting patronising foreigners is before you take the moral high ground.
I know it is difficult for non-Americans to understand the concept of unalienable rights as the basis of what true liberty is because you've never experienced it.
Click to expand...

and who can offer a reasoned counter argument.
Click to expand...
I fear it's reason that you're struggling with here. Your argument lacks it.
 
Andalublue said:
You might want to check on how insulting patronising foreigners is before you take the moral high ground.

I fear it's reason that you're struggling with here. Your argument lacks it.
Click to expand...

Well you know what? I am an American with the purpose of having hopefully intelligent and stimulating discussion on an American based message board. And while I have friends, and have had on occasion relatives, who live in your fair country, I see no reason to ignore rudeness just because you don't live here. Again, if you don't like what I have to say, just ignore it. No need to make things harder than they have to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom