• 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!

The right to -not- exercise a right?

Do you have the right to NOT exercise a right?


  • Total voters
    38
Lots of stuff didn't exist in the early stages of development for the human race. It doesn't mean they don't exist or weren't discovered or weren't learned about later on. Rights are an abstract idea, realized when man was able to comprehend the abstract.

There seems to be an overall rejection by those refusing to acknowledge rights in qualitative data. As such, I would ask again if you "believe" in the laws of thermodynamics and if you can show me their proofs.

You have rights because they were given to you, not because they are naturally occurring somehow, nor were you born with an instruction manual and certificate verifying those rights. They can also easily be taken away if you don't deserve them...so...the problem here is that we need to define rights to each other causeI think we're just arguing around a central point here...
 
Our entire system of governent is predicated on the idea that rights, being inherent and innate to our being, pre-exist government, and that the government exists to protect those rights.

If that not your basic argument, then our system of government won't work for you.
 
Our entire system of governent is predicated on the idea that rights, being inherent and innate to our being, pre-exist government, and that the government exists to protect those rights.

If that not your basic argument, then our system of government won't work for you.

As much as I agree with you, I can't help but notice that: that's how our government thinks, other governments don't agree with that. So...rights are granted by nature by virtue of the fact that our government believes so?

I am confus :(
 
You define everything off of probability and possible outcome. Because we can be killed, there's no right to life. Because someone can steal our stuff, there's no right to property. It's not an argument I find to be very valid. There's lots of probabilities, but that doesn't mean bases don't exist. I find the arbitrary placement of rights to be very dangerous. You in essence say I cannot be in the right for defending myself, that rather I am subject to the whims of the government on the matter. I don't accept that.

Arbitrary placement of rights is exceptionally dangerous.

That's how the world works.

The Messiah is trying to arbitrarily impose an artrificial "right" to health care on our nation, and in the process He MUST infringe on our legally defined "right" to hold property by raising enough taxes to pay for health care.

If these rights were absolute, this could not be done. You're taking concepts out of context and applying them inaccurately.

You're also confusing your image of moral "rightness" with the existence of 'rights". Homonyms cause confusion, what can I say?

In the eyes of Osama bin Laden, it was morally right to murder three thousand Americans. His only concern has been to escape capture.
 
The exercise of rights can be infringed upon by force.

You and others keep making arguments that because something is possible means there are no base rights. We are mortal, there's no right to life. I can be murdered, true, it doesn't mean that I didn't have a right to life. It means that right was infringed upon. The questions I asked earlier were not outcome based. It was a question on whether or not just action is taken.
 
The exercise of rights can be infringed upon by force.

You and others keep making arguments that because something is possible means there are no base rights. We are mortal, there's no right to life. I can be murdered, true, it doesn't mean that I didn't have a right to life. It means that right was infringed upon. The questions I asked earlier were not outcome based. It was a question on whether or not just action is taken.

No, the argument I'm making is, since something is 'possible' you'd better be careful cause 'possible' are odds I'm scared of. The Action taken on the infringement of rights is another Man made thing. Prior to laws on Murder, Was there a right to life?
 
As much as I agree with you, I can't help but notice that: that's how our government thinks, other governments don't agree with that. So...rights are granted by nature by virtue of the fact that our government believes so?
If you accept the stated premise, then the fact that the government doesn't recognize your rights can only mean the government is wrong.
 
Arbitrary placement of rights is exceptionally dangerous.

That's how the world works.

The Messiah is trying to arbitrarily impose an artrificial "right" to health care on our nation, and in the process He MUST infringe on our legally defined "right" to hold property by raising enough taxes to pay for health care.

If these rights were absolute, this could not be done. You're taking concepts out of context and applying them inaccurately.

You're also confusing your image of moral "rightness" with the existence of 'rights". Homonyms cause confusion, what can I say?

In the eyes of Osama bin Laden, it was morally right to murder three thousand Americans. His only concern has been to escape capture.

No, certain degrees of moral rightness indicate a base right. You're confusing right and privilege and applying them inaccurately. You keep thinking that if something is a right, there is absolutely no way it can be violated. Like an absolute law of the universe or something. I have the right to be sucked into the center of a black hole for if I ever pass the event horizon, I could not escape; it's sorta along those lines. Force can be applied to infringe upon the exercise of rights. Having a right doesn't guarantee it's exercise or that you'll be free from outside forces. Those have to be fought for. Understanding that was the very basis of this country.
 
No, the argument I'm making is, since something is 'possible' you'd better be careful cause 'possible' are odds I'm scared of. The Action taken on the infringement of rights is another Man made thing. Prior to laws on Murder, Was there a right to life?

Of course there was right to life. The creation of laws against murder were made in acknowledgment of that right. The murder laws did not create that right.
 
If you accept the stated premise, then the fact that the government doesn't recognize your rights can only mean the government is wrong.

They recognize the rights they gave me, I appreciate that. But what about rights I think I should have? (hypothetically lol, I don't actually think I'm entitled to more rights atm) Rights other entities think I should have? Rights other entities don't think I should have?
 
They recognize the rights they gave me, I appreciate that. But what about rights I think I should have?
I think I addressed this - the fact that the government doesn't recognize your rights can only mean the government is wrong.
 
But who's to say I'm right?
That's found in the acceptance of your premise.

If you do not accept that premise, then our system of government won't work for you.
 
That's found in the acceptance of your premise.

If you do not accept that premise, then our system of government won't work for you.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE ANYMORE!!!!!!!

But seriously, I don't think that means the entire Governmental system is lost on me, it just means i need to get into Politics. And then again, it's not about ME it's about US
 
I personally subscribe to the natural rights theory -- I just wanted to see how far your position went. Most people that subscribe to the social contract theory will otherwise complain about human rghts violations in China, etc.

Because they see things in terms of the rights they enjoy in their particular society. People from other countries with different sets of rights will likely look at your society and disagree with your particular set of rights. Everyone has a different opinion.
 
Because they see things in terms of the rights they enjoy in their particular society.
Well, sure -- but this in and of itself precludes arguing 'human rights' as it accepts the premise that rights a society-dependent and not universal.
 
It's not insult, it's truth. If you place the power of "rights" in the hands of some government force, you authorize some very dangerous practices. The base of this nation was built upon understanding and accepting the innate and inalienable nature of rights. If the government decides there is no "right to life" and sets up death troops, according to you we have no rightful place to resist or protest or dissent. But I say the right to life is innate to my very being. And in doing so, revolt against the death troops becomes am acceptable solution.

Only insofar as the people are the source of the government's power and ultimately are responsible for determining via group consensus what rights people will have and under which conditions they will have them. If the government denies certain rights that the people have asserted, then the government is no longer operating under public mandate. and thus, the people have every right, for lack of a better term, to topple that government and set up another which operates as a representative of the people.

Tell me, do you "believe" in the laws of thermodynamics? Can you show me where they are derived from?

Where the laws are derived from? Certainly. They are derived from human observation and testing. All physical laws are simply statements that we have made based upon observation of the world around us. Outside of our own heads, the "laws of thermodynamics" have no meaning. Thermodynamics does, the laws that we created to explain thermodynamics do not.
 
Well, sure -- but this in and of itself precludes arguing 'human rights' as it accepts the premise that rights a society-dependent and not universal.

Unfortunately, humans have the tendency to play the "might makes right" game and attempt to impose their standards on others. Humans make international laws which may infringe on the social rights of some because those people don't have any political, military or financial power to oppose it. For instance, the current move by the UN to make blasphemy laws contradicts the American (and other) right to free speech. If we had less political power in the UN, they might be able to make those laws applicable in the US. As it stands now, the UN can pass any resolutions they want, we can ignore them at our leisure because we've got an excessive amount of worldwide political, financial and military power.
 
Then don't use the word "right", you're discussing priveleges.

And we're actually on the same page.

I was wondering if you were going to come up with some religious claptrap nonsense, such as the Declaration of Independence and it's "endowed by our Creator" babble.

Obviously not since I'm an atheist. However, I am just using the terminology used by people who think we have "natural rights" and pointing out that its' all a fantasy. No matter what it says in the Bill of Rights, there isn't a single right we enjoy in this country that is inalienable or limitless. People need to deal with the reality of the situation, not the philosophical fantasy they wish were true.
 
No, certain degrees of moral rightness indicate a base right.

No. It just feels good to think that way. Since there are no "base rights", since rights are defined by human consensus, what you say is flawed.

You're confusing right and privilege and applying them inaccurately.

No, I'm recognizing that rights are legally defined abstract constructs with no corporeal existence serving solely to codify baseline moral behavior in society.

You keep thinking that if something is a right, there is absolutely no way it can be violated.

No, I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your argument.

To put it bluntly rights have no reality in the world.

Power exists.

Rights are CREATED, as a legal fiction, to put limits on the otherwise unrestrained uses of power.

Anita Dunn's hero, Mao, had unlimited power...and the Chinese had no rights.

By your standards you may claim they had a right to life....they did not, because the only function of a right is to limit the power of the sovereign over his subjects.

You may seek to impose your concept of rights on the world. To do so effectively means making war on those sovereigns who reject your vision. This is what the United States is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. If successful, those people will be GRANTED rights they never had before.

There's no magic about rights. They're NOTHING BUT a CONCEPT.

Let's say you're right....er correct. Mao then violated the "rights" of 30,000,000 chinese.

So what?

Force can be applied to infringe upon the exercise of rights. Having a right doesn't guarantee it's exercise or that you'll be free from outside forces. Those have to be fought for. Understanding that was the very basis of this country.

Yes, the rights have to be created in the legal system, by force or by politics. Before that they do not "exist in any meaningful way.
 
Obviously not since I'm an atheist. However, I am just using the terminology used by people who think we have "natural rights" and pointing out that its' all a fantasy. No matter what it says in the Bill of Rights, there isn't a single right we enjoy in this country that is inalienable or limitless. People need to deal with the reality of the situation, not the philosophical fantasy they wish were true.

No, of course not.

Note that the First Amendment doesn't grant a right to free speech. It removes the authority of congress to legislate speech controls.
 
Our entire system of governent is predicated on the idea that rights, being inherent and innate to our being, pre-exist government, and that the government exists to protect those rights.

If that not your basic argument, then our system of government won't work for you.

That STILL doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how the government was set up, the fact is that rights are not inherent or innate. The government works just fine without that assumption and that assumption cannot be justified rationally.
 
Unfortunately, humans have the tendency to play the "might makes right" game and attempt to impose their standards on others.
Yep... and in doing so, they undermine their own position.
 
No, of course not.

Note that the First Amendment doesn't grant a right to free speech. It removes the authority of congress to legislate speech controls.

That doesn't stop free speech from being controlled. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot slander people, you cannot lie in court, you cannot give state secrets to foreign governments, there are all kinds of limitations to what you can and cannot say. Free speech is an ideal, it's not something that exists in practice.
 
The exercise of rights can be infringed upon by force.

That's about as ridiculous as saying "I have a right to fly, it's just being infringed upon by gravity".
 
Back
Top Bottom