• 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
Henrin said:
Again, dogs like human being own themselves and such ownership can not be transferred.
Click to expand...

This is contrary to reality. I can legally transfer ownership of my dogs and there isn't much they can do about it. :shrug:

The control and ownership of a piece of dirt and rocks, a car, a couch, a plane or some other inanimate object can easily be shown to be transferable. I can't control people because I can't truly assume control over them. It can never truly be a transferable object to the fullest extent of the word.

There are things that are simply not transferable, and other things that are not able to be owned at all, like for example, an idea.
Click to expand...

Either you don't understand how chattel slavery works or you simply ignore the fact that you don't need any of those prerequisites you're dearly holding unto for something to be property it. Which is it? The ownership of property - all property, including slaves - is transferred with money, contracts and the legal recognition of both. The ownership is maintained through force. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
 
Hatuey said:
This is contrary to reality. I can legally transfer ownership of my dogs and there isn't much they can do about it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

But this is all wishful thinking for libertarians. They just make it up, have blind faith in it and refuse to admit that it's all a bunch of pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Going around and around and around with these people won't change that.
 
Nilly said:
So you're saying that because there are often no right answer morality must be objective? If anything, it strengthens the suggestion that morality is subjective. A subjective morality is one that can evolve as we progress as a species, which is important as we gain more knowledge about the world around us.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying sometimes you're faced with trying to determine, as Jerry stated, the "lesser of two evils." Neither choice could be considered "moral." In Truman's case, it was kill Japanese and end the war or don't kill Japanese and let the war drag on, with more dead Allies and Japanese every day until it reached its final conclusion.
 
Ahlevah said:
No, I'm saying sometimes you're faced with trying to determine, as Jerry stated, the "lesser of two evils." Neither choice could be considered "moral." In Truman's case, it was kill Japanese and end the war or don't kill Japanese and let the war drag on, with more dead Allies and Japanese every day until it reached its final conclusion.
Click to expand...
True, Truman saved lives on both sides of the conflict by using the nukes, not just A lied lives.
 
Nilly said:
300 years ago, slavery was not considered morally wrong, now it is. I am assuming that in your 'objective morality' slavery is wrong. Are there things that we consider moral now that in 500 times may be considered immoral? What would objective morality say about those things? If we as a species are slowly moving towards the state of being objectively morality, have we yet reached it, can or will we ever reach it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, slavery is wrong, was wrong, always has been wrong, notwithstanding the Hebrew God of the Old Testament. (Lincoln argued that God is providential and "has His own purposes." He's always just, and it's not our place to question His wisdom [Abraham Lincoln: Second Inaugural Address].) During ancient times the general course of events was when one nation conquered another the losing men were slain and the women and children became slaves. Sometimes the men got "lucky" and were put to work in mines or building monuments or temples or placed in galleys. People could also be sold into slavery.

As far as objective morality, have we reached it? No. We can't even agree on what it is, and because of human avarice and malevolence I doubt we'll ever get there completely. There will always be those who think the rules don't apply to them. But philosophers and logicians have already given those of us who wish to follow a "good" path" a pretty extensive toolkit.
 
Cephus said:
But this is all wishful thinking for libertarians. They just make it up, have blind faith in it and refuse to admit that it's all a bunch of pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Going around and around and around with these people won't change that.
Click to expand...

sorry man.. libertarianism doesn't exist.... nor does conservatism....

well, using your very own standards of existence anyways...
 
Henrin said:
Everything I said would apply to animals as well. A dog is in control over it's own body and they can not freely give it up nor can anyone take it from them.
Click to expand...

Dogs get to own themselves when they stop ****ting in my yard.
 
Cephus said:
But this is all wishful thinking for libertarians. They just make it up, have blind faith in it and refuse to admit that it's all a bunch of pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Going around and around and around with these people won't change that.
Click to expand...

I just find it silly that he thinks that I don't really own my dogs or that I can't control them like I do a piece of land. Methinks the young master is projecting his own inability to control the property in his life. Hell, all I have to do is whistle and my dogs will run into the room. I can ship them off to any country that I want and they have no say in the matter. I can train them to do as I wish: attack, defend, be gentle etc. Hell, I can leave them to you and you can do all of that too! The same was done to human beings for 250+ years in the US and thousands of years around the world. Any notion that I don't own them is pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
 
Hatuey said:
I just find it silly that he thinks that I don't really own my dogs or that I can't control them like I do a piece of land. Methinks the young master is projecting his own inability to control the property in his life. Hell, all I have to do is whistle and my dogs will run into the room. I can ship them off to any country that I want and they have no say in the matter. I can train them to do as I wish: attack, defend, be gentle etc. Hell, I can leave them to you and you can do all of that too! The same was done to human beings for 250+ years in the US and thousands of years around the world. Any notion that I don't own them is pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
Click to expand...

Land is different than dogs in that it doesn't wag a tail.
 
joG said:
Land is different than dogs in that it doesn't wag a tail.
Click to expand...

There is a joke here and I admit that I am not smart enough to get it.
 
Hatuey said:
There is a joke here and I admit that I am not smart enough to get it.
Click to expand...

It was only the comparison you chose dogs vs land. Dogs are self active, while land just sits there. It's hard to stop the dog farting or put the land in the car and move to Oregon. But never mind. I was omonly musing.
 
Hatuey said:
I just find it silly that he thinks that I don't really own my dogs or that I can't control them like I do a piece of land. Methinks the young master is projecting his own inability to control the property in his life. Hell, all I have to do is whistle and my dogs will run into the room. I can ship them off to any country that I want and they have no say in the matter. I can train them to do as I wish: attack, defend, be gentle etc. Hell, I can leave them to you and you can do all of that too! The same was done to human beings for 250+ years in the US and thousands of years around the world. Any notion that I don't own them is pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
Click to expand...

My cat comes to me when I whistle, sits on command, plays fetch and none of that means that I am in control of it. If my cat decides on it's own that it wants nothing to do with it then it will simply not pay me any mind. Just because an animal is trained and does as you desire it to do does not at all refute my argument. The same is true of people as well. Just because they listen to you and do as they are told, or just because you can move them around does not at all mean you have assumed control of them.
 
Ahlevah said:
Dogs get to own themselves when they stop ****ting in my yard.
Click to expand...

Well, you brought them home and told them to **** in your yard, so..
 
Henrin said:
Well, you brought them home and told them to **** in your yard, so..
Click to expand...

I don't have a dog. I'm talking about the ones the neighbors "own" but let run "free."
 
Henrin said:
My cat comes to me when I whistle, sits on command, plays fetch and none of that means that I am in control of it. If my cat decides on it's own that it wants nothing to do with it then it will simply not pay me any mind.
Click to expand...

That's nice, you still own the cat and can transfer its ownership to anyone you want. Hell, you can even end your cat's life if you so wish. That's pretty much how human beings were treated regardless of what they wished. :shrug:

Just because an animal is trained and does as you desire it to do does not at all refute my argument. The same is true of people as well. Just because they listen to you and do as they are told, or just because you can move them around does not at all mean you have assumed control of them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's obvious that you don't actually understand how chattel slavery worked. Do you know what was done to slaves who didn't listen or didn't want to listen?
 
Hatuey said:
This is contrary to reality. I can legally transfer ownership of my dogs and there isn't much they can do about it. :shrug:



Either you don't understand how chattel slavery works or you simply ignore the fact that you don't need any of those prerequisites you're dearly holding unto for something to be property it. Which is it? The ownership of property - all property, including slaves - is transferred with money, contracts and the legal recognition of both. The ownership is maintained through force. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
Click to expand...

I simply reject the basis of your argument that all property legally recognized is legitimate. Before we consider legitimacy of claims we have to form a basis of how someone comes to own something or otherwise law has no basis to even start from. Your entire approach here seems to be either circular or backwards.
 
Hatuey said:
That's nice, you still own the cat and can transfer its ownership to anyone you want. Hell, you can even end your cat's life if you so wish. That's pretty much how human beings were treated regardless of what they wished. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes, except that isn't the entire control picture, but merely part of it. The remainder of the control picture is simply something you don't wish to see.

Yeah, it's obvious that you don't actually understand how chattel slavery worked. Do you know what was done to slaves who didn't listen or didn't want to listen?
Click to expand...

How does that refute my argument? Whipping someone when they refuse to obey would only seem to support my argument that you do not in fact control them.
 
Henrin said:
I simply reject the basis of your argument that all property legally recognized is legitimate.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my premise at all. My premise is that human beings can be property and they have been treated as property in the real world. Not Libertarian-la-la-land.
 
Hatuey said:
That wasn't my premise at all. My premise is that human beings can be property and they have been treated as property in the real world. Not Libertarian-la-la-land.
Click to expand...

I agree people are property of themselves. How people were treated in the past by aggressors doesn't seem to challenge my argument. :shrug:
 
Henrin said:
I agree people are property of themselves.
Click to expand...

And they can be forced into being someone else's property. That property is defended and upheld through contracts, law, conventions, etc. What you feel about that is irrelevant.

How people were treated in the past by aggressors doesn't seem to challenge my argument. :shrug:
Click to expand...

We are all well aware that the real world has never been an obstacle to your pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
 
Hatuey said:
And they can be forced into being someone else's property. That property is defended and upheld through contracts, law, conventions, etc. What you feel about that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

They can not. However, like i said, if you accept that people can be property and that the property can be transferred then any forced transfer would amount to robbery and thus the claims of the slave owner would be forfeit. If however you believe they are property and that it can not be transferred then again the claim is forfeit as they can never own the object in question. The only way you still believe they are property is if you believe they were unowned property before the slave owners claims, and that would lead to me asking you how exactly you believe property works. I still think you believe all claims are legitimate because the state recognizes them, sorry. If that is the case then your argument is circular.
 
Henrin said:
They can not.
Click to expand...

Of course they can. Would you like me to start citing examples of just that being done?

However, like i said, if you accept that people can be property and that the property can be transferred then any forced transfer would amount to robbery and thus the claims of the slave owner would be forfeit.
Click to expand...

Not every forced transfer is robbery. Taxes for example are not robbery. You are free to move to a nation without them or with an inability to enforce them. I hear Somalia is kind of nice. However, this is entirely irrelevant to the notion of whether people can be made into property.

If however you believe they are property and that it can not be transferred then again the claim is forfeit as they can never own the object in question.
Click to expand...

Pseudointellectual blabbering will you nowhere with me.

The only way you still believe they are property is if you believe they were unowned property before the slave owners claims, and that would lead to me asking you how exactly you believe property works.
Click to expand...

Nope, I believe people can be made into property through force. Before that, they are simply free individuals. Once force is employed, and they submit, they cease to be free individuals and become property. Is this REALLY hard for you to get? :shrug:

I still think you believe all claims are legitimate because the state recognizes them, sorry. If that is the case then your argument is circular.
Click to expand...

You're trying too hard to completely ignore the real world that we live in. Would you like me to find examples of chattel slavery and how it has worked and why your nonsensical arguments fail?
 
Hatuey said:
I just find it silly that he thinks that I don't really own my dogs or that I can't control them like I do a piece of land. Methinks the young master is projecting his own inability to control the property in his life. Hell, all I have to do is whistle and my dogs will run into the room. I can ship them off to any country that I want and they have no say in the matter. I can train them to do as I wish: attack, defend, be gentle etc. Hell, I can leave them to you and you can do all of that too! The same was done to human beings for 250+ years in the US and thousands of years around the world. Any notion that I don't own them is pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
Click to expand...

Libertarianism: Pseudo-intellectual nonsense. You got that right. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom