View Poll Results: Do you have the right to NOT exercise a right?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    40 88.89%
  • No

    2 4.44%
  • Other

    3 6.67%
Page 20 of 38 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 377

Thread: The right to -not- exercise a right?

  1. #191
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I want some kind of logical justification for your claims and evidence and well-reasoned arguments that demonstrate that they are at all likely to be true. That's not so much to ask for...That's what rational people do.
    Speaking of which...

    Were you going to cite the text of the US Constitution that grants the people of the United States their rights, or not?

    If you like, you can also cite from federal law, state constitutions, and state law as well.

  2. #192
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Speaking of which...

    Were you going to cite the text of the US Constitution that grants the people of the United States their rights, or not?

    If you like, you can also cite from federal law, state constitutions, and state law as well.
    Surely you can use Google, I don't have to do your research for you. Look up cases like Roe v. Wade to see where rights are granted.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  3. #193
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I want some kind of logical justification for your claims and evidence and well-reasoned arguments that demonstrate that they are at all likely to be true. That's not so much to ask for.

    All you've been doing is running around waving your arms screaming "I'm right I'm right I'm right I'm right I'm right I'm right!" When people ask you to prove it, you keep running in circles screaming "I'm right I'm right I'm right I'm right!" That doesn't demonstrate your case, it just proves you don't have one.
    The idea of natural rights is not new. I didn't make it up. It was subject of debate for some time, and codified in many political philosophies such as those proposed by Hobbes and Locke.

    Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural and legal rights.

    Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

    Blurring the lines between natural and legal rights, U.S. statesman James Madison believed that some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority.
    The question of which (if any) rights are natural and which are merely legal is an important one in philosophy and politics. Critics of the concept of natural rights argue that the only rights that exist are legal rights, while proponents of the concept of natural rights say that documents such as the United States Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights demonstrate the usefulness of recognizing natural rights. The focus of natural rights in the United States Declaration of Independence is expressed in the legal philosophy known as Declarationism.

    The theory of natural law is closely related to the theory of natural rights. During the Age of Enlightenment, natural law theory challenged the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government — and thus legal rights — in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by some anarchists to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.

    The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law.
    Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) included a discussion of natural rights in his moral and political philosophy. Hobbes' conception of natural rights extended from his conception of man in a "state of nature". Thus he argued that the essential natural (human) right was "to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto." (Leviathan. 1,XIV)

    According to Hobbes, to deny this right would be absurd, just as it would be absurd to expect that carnivores might reject meat or fish stop swimming. Hobbes sharply distinguished this natural "liberty", from natural "laws" (obligations), described generally as "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of life, or taketh away the means of preserving life; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may best be preserved." (ibid.)

    In his natural state, according to Hobbes, man's life consisted entirely of liberties and not at all of laws - "It followeth, that in such a condition, every man has the right to every thing; even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural Right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man... of living out the time, which Nature ordinarily allow men to live." (ibid.)

    This would lead inevitably to a situation known as the "war of all against all", in which human beings kill, steal and enslave others in order to stay alive, and due to their natural lust for "Gain", "Safety" and "Reputation". Hobbes reasoned that this world of chaos created by unlimited rights was highly undesirable, since it would cause human life to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". As such, if humans wish to live peacefully they must give up most of their natural rights and create moral obligations in order to establish political and civil society. This is one of the earliest formulations of the theory of government known as the social contract.

    Hobbes objected to the attempt to derive rights from "natural law," arguing that law ("lex") and right ("jus") though often confused, signify opposites, with law referring to obligations, while rights refer to the absence of obligations. Since by our (human) nature, we seek to maximize our well being, rights are prior to law, natural or institutional, and people will not follow the laws of nature without first being subjected to a sovereign power, without which all ideas of right and wrong are rendered insignificant - "Therefore before the names of Just and Unjust can have place, there must be some coercive Power, to compel men equally to the performance of their Covenants..., to make good that Propriety, which by mutual contract men acquire, in recompense of the universal Right they abandon: and such power there is none before the erection of the Commonwealth." (Leviathan. 1, XV) This marked an important departure from medieval natural law theories which gave precedence to obligations over rights. However, some thinkers such as Leo Strauss, maintained that Hobbes kept the primacy of natural law or moral obligation over natural rights, and thus did not fully break with medieval thought.

    John Locke (1632–1704), was another prominent Western philosopher who conceptualized rights as natural and inalienable. Like Hobbes, Locke was a major social contract thinker. He said that man's natural rights are life, liberty, and property. He greatly influenced the American Revolutionary War with his writings of natural rights.

    According to Locke there are three natural rights:

    * Life- everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
    * Liberty- everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
    * Estate- everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

    The social contract is a contract between a being or beings of power and their people or followers. The King makes the laws to protect the 3 natural rights. The people may not agree on the laws, but they have to follow them. The people can be prosecuted and/or killed if they break these laws. If the King does not follow these rules, he can be overthrown.

    Thomas Paine (1731–1809) further elaborated on natural rights in his influential work Rights of Man (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges:

    It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice.

    The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.
    Your arguments base themselves on the non-existence of natural rights. Rather only legal rights exist. But the ideal of natural rights is not new. And the observations which can lead people to the discovery of natural rights has been around for quite some time. It is a philosophy I personally agree with. Since humans are humans no matter what, there is a base of rights inherent to all people. Life, liberty, and property are these rights. Can there be other "rights", I would call the government granted privilege, though some refer to it as legal rights. Some times legal "rights" comes through the use of government force to suppress natural rights. But the existence of natural rights is an important context for it always places power then in the hands of the People, not through some majority or government assembly.
    Last edited by Ikari; 11-06-09 at 05:31 PM.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #194
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Surely you can use Google, I don't have to do your research for you. Look up cases like Roe v. Wade to see where rights are granted.
    Aha. So much for "Get to work or admit failure".

    I ask you to put up or shut up, like YOU have been doing for tke last couple days, and you run away from the challenge.

    'Nuff said. Thanks.

  5. #195
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The idea of natural rights is not new. I didn't make it up. It was subject of debate for some time, and codified in many political philosophies such as those proposed by Hobbes and Locke.
    I never said you made it up, I said you can't justify it. Neither could Hobbes or Locke. Just because someone says something, even if it's a philosopher, that still doesn't make it so.

    Now I'm still waiting for your EVIDENCE that rights exist outside of human society.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #196
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Aha. So much for "Get to work or admit failure".

    I ask you to put up or shut up, like YOU have been doing for tke last couple days, and you run away from the challenge.

    'Nuff said. Thanks.
    I did point you to one such case, you just don't want to pay attention. If you want to go look at the text of the case, Google is your friend. I provided one source, there are many, many, many more.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  7. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    It's not an infant, it's a foetus.
    I didn't use the word "infant", I used the word "baby".

    I use words correctly.

    A fetus is a baby.

    A baby is a fetus for a short time.

  8. #198
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    It's not an infant, it's a foetus.
    It's not a foetus, it's a fœtus.

  9. #199
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You have proven the laws of thermodynamics from first principle! Wow, since it's never been done before, color me impressed. Can I see these proofs?
    The Laws of Thermodynamics are taken as Law because they've never been observed to have been broken.

    Your assertion that rights are innate has been shown false by the existence of mutually exclusive rights, thereby creating paradox. Paradox does not exist in nature, and hence your claim that rights are innate has been proven false.

    Your choices now are to provide an argument that invalidates the proof, you concede defeat, or you pretend the proof was wrong and none of us evil people are LISTENING, DAMMIT!


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, I've pointed out everything already. You're defining "rights" through utility. But those aren't "rights". Rights are innate and inalienable to humans.
    Merely restating your hypothesis is not proof of the hypothesis.

    Circular reasoning is failed reasoning.

  10. #200
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    It's not a foetus, it's a ftus.
    Actually, it's a feetus.

    Most babies have two.

Page 20 of 38 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •