View Poll Results: Are Rights Natural?

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

    27 40.30%
  • No.

    32 47.76%
  • Other.

    6 8.96%
  • Rootabega.

    16 23.88%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 11 of 36 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 352

Thread: Are Rights Natural?

  1. #101
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Please define "right" in less than 4 sentences.

    Then define "natural right" as well.

    What is a "non-natural" right?

    I think that will clear things up a bit.
    1. A belief that a person has a moral claim to something

    2. A moral framework promoted by philosophers such as Locke and Russeau.

    3. I think the definition is dependent on whether someone subscribes to #2. But in my view, it is any right really since they don't naturally occur.

  2. #102
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    so·ci·e·ty (s-s-t)
    n. pl. so·ci·e·ties
    1.
    a. The totality of social relationships among humans.
    Actually, Websters has a much better definition.
    1. An extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization.






    I don't understand, sector of morals? Parse error ...
    Noun
    1. A plane figure bounded by two radii and the included arc of a circle.

    2. A body of people who form part of society or economy; "the public sector".

    3. A particular aspect of life or activity; "he was helpless in an important sector of his life".

    4. The minimum track length that can be assigned to store information; unless otherwise specified a sector of data consists of 512 bytes.

    5. A portion of a military position.

    6. Measuring instrument consisting of two graduated arms hinged at one end.





    I disagree. You cannot easily say which is learned behavior since they would learn the behavior of whatever situation they were born in.
    Then why are you claiming freedom has to be learned? When it is obvious that captivity is what needs to be learned, i.e. limits.



    That's because captivity vs freedom has no relation to morals unless those morals involve that concept. Either way, I misunderstood your argument. You seem to be saying that we have a freedom of something if we can imagine it though, that doesn't make sense.
    No, freedom is the natural state of life, rights are those things which cannot be granted, only infringed. The reason for social rights theory is for those seeking power to claim creation of rights, if it were to follow that "society" grants you rights then that society arguably could change it's mind. However, if you observe past only man, and watch nature in action, or look at the young and their behaviors, it is obvious that rights are simply there. As well, look into the constitution, the writing doesn't say that the constitution grants rights, only that they are not to be infringed.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #103
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Actually, Websters has a much better definition.
    1. An extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization.







    Noun
    1. A plane figure bounded by two radii and the included arc of a circle.

    2. A body of people who form part of society or economy; "the public sector".

    3. A particular aspect of life or activity; "he was helpless in an important sector of his life".

    4. The minimum track length that can be assigned to store information; unless otherwise specified a sector of data consists of 512 bytes.

    5. A portion of a military position.

    6. Measuring instrument consisting of two graduated arms hinged at one end.





    Then why are you claiming freedom has to be learned? When it is obvious that captivity is what needs to be learned, i.e. limits.



    No, freedom is the natural state of life, rights are those things which cannot be granted, only infringed. The reason for social rights theory is for those seeking power to claim creation of rights, if it were to follow that "society" grants you rights then that society arguably could change it's mind. However, if you observe past only man, and watch nature in action, or look at the young and their behaviors, it is obvious that rights are simply there. As well, look into the constitution, the writing doesn't say that the constitution grants rights, only that they are not to be infringed.
    I will need to come back to #1 and #2 later. My allergy medicine is making me forgetful (and very grouchy) and I think you deserve my full attention. You have #3 and #4 fully addressed in the previous post so I will get to those.

    #3, I am saying that both need to be learned. Depending on socialization and instinct. Different animals are different of course. For humans, it is definitely learned.

    #4. I disagree. All you are saying is that you place your morals above society's laws. That just means you believe in your morals strongly. I do the same thing, so do most people actually. You just happen to think yours are the only ones worth considering. Most people do that too though. The point is, each person decides this for themselves and they may or may not come to the same conclusions that you did.

    I address this more thoroughly in my last post against Ikari. But suffice to say that I completely do not agree with you, even on the most fundamental level, and because they are simply ideas, ultimately it does not matter. We will each do our thing and fight for what we think is right.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 03-02-10 at 03:17 PM.

  4. #104
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,691

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Infringe upon my natural rights, and see how far I'm willing to go to impose myself and protect my rights. The people of the ME may reject the idea of natural rights because it interferes with government power and theocratic rule. But that doesn't mean the natural rights do not exist. All the people in the ME still have the same base rights as me or any other human on this planet.
    There are people that live in societies and environments where abuse and violation of their 'rights' are the norm...its expected and accepted.

    Rights is a concept...an idea.

  5. #105
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    I mean, if we start allowing for the absurd, that's where the conversation will head. So maybe you should choose before we go on. Are we taking the absurd route or not? There are no natural means by which I can transfer my consciousness, thus ownership of my body is innate. You can't take my thoughts, you can't take my ideas, you can't take my feelings. These are all innate to me and naturally exist within me. So too do natural rights. You cannot take them from me. You can not force me to believe or not believe a religion. You can not force me to accept certain candidates, to believe in their platforms. In the end, there is a base from which everything else is constructed; and that base is composed of natural rights.
    There's nothing absurd about it, I was just pointing out where your assertion fell apart and instead of actually handling the problem, you waved your hands around and pretended you didn't have to. You seem absurdly concerned with the "natural", there are lots of things that we do every day that are not remotely natural but that doesn't seem to phase you. You cannot fly by any natural means, but millions of people fly every single day worldwide.

    The simple fact is, you have control over your body only so long as you maintain that control. If someone knocks you out and you wake up in a bathtub full of ice, missing a kidney, how much control can you say you had over your body? If you take hallucinogenic drugs, you may see things that you might not want to see. So much for control over your mind.

    I will agree with you, in the end natural rights is the base from which much of libertarianism is constructed, but the fact that natural rights is demonstrably ridiculous, to the point that you've entirely failed to be able to objectively demonstrate it in any way, shape or form, proves that libertarianism is based almost entirely on faith, not reality. Libertarianism is probably closer to a religion than a credible political system.

    And no, nobody can force you to believe any differently, we can simply keep pointing out that what you believe is a farce.
    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. #106
    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: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    There are people that live in societies and environments where abuse and violation of their 'rights' are the norm...its expected and accepted.

    Rights is a concept...an idea.
    Just because people live in tyranny and oppression doesn't mean they don't have rights. They most certainly have the same base rights all humans enjoy, even if the exercise of such rights are forcible infringed upon by some outside force.
    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."

  7. #107
    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: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    There's nothing absurd about it, I was just pointing out where your assertion fell apart and instead of actually handling the problem, you waved your hands around and pretended you didn't have to. You seem absurdly concerned with the "natural", there are lots of things that we do every day that are not remotely natural but that doesn't seem to phase you. You cannot fly by any natural means, but millions of people fly every single day worldwide.

    The simple fact is, you have control over your body only so long as you maintain that control. If someone knocks you out and you wake up in a bathtub full of ice, missing a kidney, how much control can you say you had over your body? If you take hallucinogenic drugs, you may see things that you might not want to see. So much for control over your mind.

    I will agree with you, in the end natural rights is the base from which much of libertarianism is constructed, but the fact that natural rights is demonstrably ridiculous, to the point that you've entirely failed to be able to objectively demonstrate it in any way, shape or form, proves that libertarianism is based almost entirely on faith, not reality. Libertarianism is probably closer to a religion than a credible political system.

    And no, nobody can force you to believe any differently, we can simply keep pointing out that what you believe is a farce.
    What I believe is not a farce. If you want to leave the absurd and go into childish insults, we're done. Good day to you. I won't entertain arguments of children.
    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."

  8. #108
    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: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    They do if they believe they do. They don't if they believe they don't. Just like the slave owner has the right of ownership if he believes he does. That matter is between the slave and the owner. Our beliefs, morals, etc are the only thing that can answer this question. So it depends on the slave and what the owner believes.

    If there is a disagreement between parties, some method of resolution will be used, probably based on force, but maybe a contract, or an exchange of value, or some other mechanism, such as the slave running away. Society might or might not impose their view on the situation as well which will also affect how the disagreement is resolved.

    Sorry, I thought I addressed it. Does that help?
    No, you're purposefully avoiding the question...same with much of the rest of your argument. You can engage and answer the questions, or you can tap dance around. Your choice.
    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."

  9. #109
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    If there are no natural rights, then everything is a construct of the current government and society.
    Wow, you got something right for once. Yes, everything *IS* a construct of the current government and society. It doesn't make a bit of difference if that makes you happy or comforted, it is simply the fact of life.

    If they say, for instance, that slavery is legal then slavery is legal and there's nothing you can do about it. A slave is a slave and must accept that lot. Because the slave has no natural right, the slave has no just reason to be upset over being a slave. The slave has no justifiable reason to revolt or fight back because natural rights do not exist. Thus if the slave is not assigned rights by anyone, the slave has no rights. And without rights, then he has no recourse to fight against that designation.
    Entirely wrong. Just because something is currently legal doesn't mean that it must always be legal, or illegal for that matter. Societies change. Slavery was once legal, now it is illegal. Why? Because a significant portion of society decided that the law needed to change. We fought a war over it. The side who wanted change won, thus their will was imposed on the society as a whole. The slave doesn't necessarily have to like his lot in life, they can dislike it intensely, they can, at least under certain circumstances, fight to change the society and many blacks did just that. You seem to think that "right" and "wrong" have any objective meaning. They don't. Personally, I think it was wrong that we allowed slavery. It was wrong when blacks were considered 3/5ths human. It was wrong when women couldn't vote. It's wrong today that gays cannot marry. But those are my opinions, they have no bearing on objective reality, which is exactly what you're trying to assert. You're taking wishful thinking and trying to make it mean something universal and it's just not so.

    The right gives the limitations to the government and offers legitimacy for acting against it should it err too greatly against our rights. If we do not have rights, we do not have the legitimacy. If everything is privilege granted to us by law or society, then the slave has no legitimate reason to rise up against the government or his owners. He has no rights. According to you.
    Oh good, another ridiculous screed against the government. Guess what? The government is the legislative arm of the society! What you're really trying to do is whine "oh no, the government won't do what I want, therefore I'll cast them as the big baddies out to screw everyone over!" The government gets as bad as the people, collectively, allow it to. Don't like the government? Take it up with society.

    Getting upset is justified because your rights have been violated. Fighting back is justified because your rights have been violated.
    How does that stop me from getting upset that my societally-granted rights are violated? Why is some "natural" right required to be justified in acknowledging that you've been abused in a society which has guaranteed that you will not be abused?

    This is not likened to Christians saying that atheists can't be moral.
    It's very similar in fact. Christians who say that are clueless about the source of morality, thus anyone who doesn't believe in their imaginary friend cannot be moral because they misplace the source of morality. Likewise, I think it's clear that you don't understand the source of rights, thus you think, correct me if I'm wrong, that anyone who doesn't believe in your imaginary "natural rights" cannot understand rights.

    It's like someone saying "tell them damn niggers I'm not racist". It's someone who doesn't quite comprehend the terms.
    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!

  10. #110
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, you're purposefully avoiding the question...same with much of the rest of your argument. You can engage and answer the questions, or you can tap dance around. Your choice.
    Ok. Something is not connecting between us. Because I tried to answer it the best I can. You assert that certain rights are universal, I do not. I think that is our fundamental difference. Applied to slavery, my conclusion is:

    My stance is ultimately that the slave decides the extent of their own freedom and they fight to try to accomplish it, they might succeed or fail. The same for the slave owner. Neither person is better or worse since it is up to their own moral framework to decide, but they do it for themselves. Of course we can also judge these two people based on our own moral criteria and come to our own conclusions. He may wish to be free, he may not wish to be free. Supposedly the slave sees some benefit in whatever he chooses.

    There is no overall objective framework to decide these things. I don't see how that's avoiding the question other than I am simply not acknowledging your concept of natural rights because I simply do not believe in them and that is an adequate reason for me. (I do believe in something very similar to your concept though, but we disagree on its source.)

    but going back to the idea of liberty of the body, a person has liberty of the body as long as conditions allow it. If their spinal cord is severed, they lose that liberty (or at least the moving around aspect of it). If they have brain death, they lose the liberty of consciousness, etc. We only have liberty in things as long as there is a framework for its use by us. It is the same with society. We might disagree, like we might be angry with our body for not doing what we would like it to do, but the only response we can have is to try to change the framework so we get more of what we want. Maybe that poor guy will grow some new nerve cells through therapy or signals will be rerouted. Maybe we will pass a new law that allows or disallows something. Its more or less the same concept applied to different situations.

    Perhaps if you restate the question in another form, we can make another attempt.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 03-02-10 at 04:48 PM.

Page 11 of 36 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... 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
  •