• 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!

I have a "right" to...

I have a "right" to...


  • Total voters
    84
water makes me happy:) so its a double win. but rights are extended to however far the person can get.

It is really up to your intellect, diligence, perseverance and resilience. I stress these synonyms. McDonalds charges for water, they sure are fueling soda water no? I guess even businesses have a right to charge their property..
 
Ok... and why would such a thing make you unhappy and/or dissatisfied?

For whatever particular reasons I personally find valid. I might be unhappy if I go out to eat and find they're out of prime rib. That doesn't mean I think I have a right to prime rib.
 

Because of my personal dislike for being forced to do anything.

Here is what the Constitution said about "rights" regarding slavery:

"The Constitution and Slavery:
Provisions in the Original Constitution
Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].

Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article."

The Thirteenth Amendment: Slavery and the Constitution

Are these unalienable "rights," or just horse hockey we made up?

Just because something was written in the Constitution doesn't provide it with some kind of ultimate word in the matter.

Its just stuff we made up!
 
Last edited:
Because of my personal dislike for being forced to do anything.
And you should not be forced to do anything, because...?
 
And you should not be forced to do anything, because...?

I don't like it, a personal preference of mine.

See my edit above on the rights of Slaves in the Constitution.
 
I don't like it, a personal preference of mine.
And that creates a sound argument to that effect.... how?
Why do you think that you should get to do what you want to do?
 
Last edited:
And that creates a sound argument to that effect.... how?
Why do you think that you should get to do what you want to do?

I don't. Its just my preference.

What kind of unalienable rights did the slaves enjoy? The "right" to be 3/5 a person?
 
I don't. Its just my preference.
Your awnser is self-negating.
You say you think you should not have to do what you do not want to do, but that you dont have a reason for it -- and then you cite a reason.

How does your 'preference' here create a sound argument?

What you wont admit to me, but are certainly saying to yourself, is that you have the right to do what you want to do, and to not do what you do not want to do.
 
Your awnser is self-negating.
You say you think you should not have to do what you do not want to do, but that you dont have a reason for it -- and then you cite a reason.

No, that is what you said. If you are going to make up what I believe, you can also make up a reason to cite for it.

And for the second time you have avoided answering my questions regarding the "rights" of slaves.

Kind of blows your whole theory of the Constitution being made up of unalienable rights doesn't it?
 
No, that is what you said.
OK...I will revise:
Its your preference that you should get to do what you want to do.
And that creates a sound argument to that effect.... how?

And, again:
What you wont admit to me, but are certainly saying to yourself, is that you have the right to do what you want to do, and to not do what you do not want to do.
 
Here is what the Constitution said about unalienable "rights" regarding slavery:

"The Constitution and Slavery:
Provisions in the Original Constitution
Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].

Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article."
The Thirteenth Amendment: Slavery and the Constitution

Are these unalienable "rights," or just horse hockey we made up?
 
here is what the constitution said about unalienable "rights" regarding slavery:

"the constitution and slavery:
Provisions in the original constitution
article i, section. 2 [slaves count as 3/5 persons]representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons [i.e., slaves].

Article i, section. 9, clause 1. [no power to ban slavery until 1808]
the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Article iv, section. 2. [free states cannot protect slaves]
no person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.
Article v [no constitutional amendment to ban slavery until 1808]
...no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article."
the thirteenth amendment: Slavery and the constitution

are these unalienable "rights," or just horse hockey we made up?

fraction man!!!!
 
fraction man!!!!

Yeah, ain't it a hoot, African Americans apparently have the "unalienable right" to be counted as 3/5 persons. :mrgreen:
 
Yeah, ain't it a hoot, African Americans apparently have the "unalienable right" to be counted as 3/5 persons. :mrgreen:

Which is why this discussion has descended into some solipsistic US w**kfest. The thread, I thought, was about a general discussion on the idea of rights. Not rights as enshrined in the US constitution (which is relevant to about 5% of the World's population) but to the overall question of what does or does not constitute a "natural" right. A "human" right, not an American right , a European right, a Japanese right, but an "inalienable right" - i.e. one that cannot be taken away, cannot be denied.

As George Carlin says, "A right isn't a right if someone can just take it away. Then it's a privilege and that's all we have."

I would like society, all human society, to guarantee a number of rights. I would like all human society to ensure certain things that all people can depend on and that no authority can violate because they are "natural rights". I'd like to believe in the right for kids not to die of starvation in a world that has more than enough food to go around. I'd like for every individual to be able to decide what kind of family unit (if any) they wish to be a part of and for no one to discriminate against them because of the choice they make. Unfortunately, I can't. Neither can anyone.
 
Which is why this discussion has descended into some solipsistic US w**kfest. The thread, I thought, was about a general discussion on the idea of rights. Not rights as enshrined in the US constitution (which is relevant to about 5% of the World's population) but to the overall question of what does or does not constitute a "natural" right. A "human" right, not an American right , a European right, a Japanese right, but an "inalienable right" - i.e. one that cannot be taken away, cannot be denied.

As George Carlin says, "A right isn't a right if someone can just take it away. Then it's a privilege and that's all we have."

I would like society, all human society, to guarantee a number of rights. I would like all human society to ensure certain things that all people can depend on and that no authority can violate because they are "natural rights". I'd like to believe in the right for kids not to die of starvation in a world that has more than enough food to go around. I'd like for every individual to be able to decide what kind of family unit (if any) they wish to be a part of and for no one to discriminate against them because of the choice they make. Unfortunately, I can't. Neither can anyone.

The reason I keep returning to the U.S. Constitution, though, is because our Constitution, unlike any other at the time it was presented and maybe even now, was not a document by which the people would be governed. It was a document by which the government is charged to secure the people's unalienable rights so that the people could then govern themselves.

Those rights, capsulized in the Declaration's short list: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are outlined in our Bill of Rights.

For a child, the only way he or she can enjoy life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is by the care and protection of adults responsible for his/her well being. His/her civil and legal rights were intended to be bestowed when s/he reached the age of majority and would take responsibility for his/her own destiny.

We have unalienable rights to our opinions, thoughts, prejudices, biases, beliefs, quirks, and foibles. There is no unalienable right, however, to require that society order itself as we would prefer or provide any material benefit to us or like us or approve of us or appreciate us. All that is decided by mutual social contract and there will always be those who disapprove of the society we choose to form.
 
More idiotic strawmen coming from the usual suspects.

A "right" is just a philosophical construct based upon human nature, hence the term, "natural rights". When someone says they "have" a right they don't mean they physically possess something; it's just a moral sentiment derived from a human universal. A simple affirmation of ownership over our own person. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. It's really quite simple.
 
More idiotic strawmen coming from the usual suspects.

A "right" is just a philosophical construct based upon human nature, hence the term, "natural rights". When someone says they "have" a right they don't mean they physically possess something; it's just a moral sentiment derived from a human universal. A simple affirmation of ownership over our own person. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. It's really quite simple.

Dear Lord, I think we agree. Do we? Are you saying that claiming a right is a psychological reification of self? That it has nothing to do with universally accepted and applicable "inalienable" "rights"?

I'm kind of scared at the idea we may agree on this.
 
More idiotic strawmen coming from the usual suspects.

A "right" is just a philosophical construct based upon human nature, hence the term, "natural rights". When someone says they "have" a right they don't mean they physically possess something; it's just a moral sentiment derived from a human universal. A simple affirmation of ownership over our own person. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. It's really quite simple.

If 'natural rights' is a philosophical construct based upon human nature, then why was the US Constitution so unique a document? And why was that relatively small group of visionary post-Revolutionaries who hammered it out apparently the only ones in the world who had thought out the concepts and presume to put them into practice?

Wouldn't 'human nature' span a much broader base?

I will agree that it is ingrained in humankind to defend our own lives and to value freedom. And I suppose everybody dreams or hopes of things not yet achieved. No doubt the Founders recognized that and believed such traits are God given, i.e. 'natural rights'.

But it seems to me that it is more human nature to want an authority figure to lead, and the people who have none will clamor for a king. The idea of self governance seems to me to be a relatively unique concept, one that many Americans don't even understand or embrace. The Founders did understand it as well as what constituted an unalienable right.
 
Dear Lord, I think we agree. Do we? Are you saying that claiming a right is a psychological reification of self? That it has nothing to do with universally accepted and applicable "inalienable" "rights"?

I'm kind of scared at the idea we may agree on this.

A "right" is an affirmation of something inalienable, i.e., individual sovereignty. Individual sovereignty is universal and arises from nature, more specifically, human nature. This is why "rights" are said to be natural and inalienable. I'm not sure if we agree or not, but that is my understanding of natural rights.
 
If 'natural rights' is a philosophical construct based upon human nature, then why was the US Constitution so unique a document? And why was that relatively small group of visionary post-Revolutionaries who hammered it out apparently the only ones in the world who had thought out the concepts and presume to put them into practice?

Wouldn't 'human nature' span a much broader base?

I believe the concept (self ownership, individual will) has existed throughout human history, the Founders were just the first ones to fully articulate it.

Humans have always understood that objects fall towards the Earth, Newton was just the first person to describe the underlying mechanisms of "gravity".

I will agree that it is ingrained in humankind to defend our own lives and to value freedom. And I suppose everybody dreams or hopes of things not yet achieved. No doubt the Founders recognized that and believed such traits are God given, i.e. 'natural rights'.

I don't think all of the Founders saw rights as being "God"-given necessarily. Thomas Jefferson specifically left God out of the Declaration of Independence and instead opted for "Creator", which could mean almost anything, e.g., nature, the universe, your parents, etc. It could mean God, too.

But it seems to me that it is more human nature to want an authority figure to lead, and the people who have none will clamor for a king. The idea of self governance seems to me to be a relatively unique concept, one that many Americans don't even understand or embrace. The Founders did understand it as well as what constituted an unalienable right.

Humans do things out of perceived self-interest, whether it's clamoring for a king or writing the Declaration of Independence.

P.S. - I wasn't saying you or Andalublue are making idiotic strawman arguments in my initial posting; I was referring to some other unsavory characters... = D
 
Last edited:
I believe the concept (self ownership, individual will) has existed throughout human history, the Founders were just the first ones to fully articulate it.

Humans have always understood that objects fall towards the Earth, Newton was just the first person to describe the underlying mechanisms of "gravity".

I don't think all of the Founders saw rights as being "God"-given necessarily. Thomas Jefferson specifically left God out of the Declaration of Independence and instead opted for "Creator", which could mean almost anything, e.g., nature, the universe, your parents, etc. It could mean God, too.

Humans do things out of perceived self-interest, whether it's clamoring for a king or writing the Declaration of Independence.

Of course humans do things out of self-interest. There isn't any other reason to do do things at all. There is even a degree of self-interest in being entirely selfless and/or unselfish and that's okay too. Our Founders focused on unalienable rights because they saw that as the key to putting together a society in which they most wanted to live. We are the beneficiaries of their self interest.

But the most interesting thing contemplating that whole process and their motivations for doing it the way they did ultimately convinced me that the only 'natural rights' or "God given rights" or "unalienable rights" are those that require nothing from any others but their non interference.

P.S. - I wasn't saying you or Andalublue are making idiotic strawman arguments in my initial posting; I was referring to some other unsavory characters... = D

Oh I missed that. So I missed a chance to be offended? Darn.

Anyhow, you've really made me think through what I did think about all this evening, and I thank you for that. I'm headed for my pillow and a good movie to put me to sleep.

Good night friends.
 
Which are...?

Entirely irrelevant. I find it funny that you cut out the meat of the response, that just because I don't like something doesn't mean that I have a right to have it another way.
 
Here is what the Constitution said about unalienable "rights" regarding slavery....
I'm sorry...
Its your preference that you should get to do what you want to do.
And that creates a sound argument to that effect.... how?
What makes you thnk that you should get to do what you want to do?
 
Back
Top Bottom