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 9 of 36 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 352

Thread: Are Rights Natural?

  1. #81
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    To me, natural rights apply to all in nature. I have the right to whatever I can maintain, be it by my own force or innovation, or that of society. A lion has natural rights to the extent that he can procure his own food and can physically survive his environment. A tree has the right to survive assuming it can adapt to its environment. We all have a natural right to survive and act based on our ability to maintain our own life via adaptation, force, or within social constructs.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  2. #82
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Sigh...

    OK...

    Sometimes talking on this board i 'feel' like Cephus's lion avatar 'looks'...

    sorry about the maam thing...gender association by Avatar...
    That's why I never look at the avatar, just the "Gender". It's hard when people don't use the "Gender" category though, I guess then it would be safer to just assume a gender (or avoid all gender-specific terminology). Or whatever.
    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. #83
    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
    There's nothing wrong with it, but the fact that we even have to think about it means there is an element of human in it and not nature. Because it comes from humans, it is subject to subjectivity and that opens the question of "which definition is best? Locke's, Jeffry Dahmer's, Confucius', Lao Tse's, Ayn Rand's, Neitche's, etc?" If Locke's is best, can that be proven objectively?

    If it can't than it simply a preference.
    It's more than just preference though, the understanding and accepting of natural rights is of profound importance. It's the limiter of government. It says that we have just reason to stand and fight for our rights, that we don't have to accept things as they are. If we don't have a thing called natural rights, then one couldn't believe that a slave should ever get upset over being a slave. They have to right to anything else but what they are. If the government acts against us, and starts throwing us in jail for whatever reason, we can't be upset about it because there are not natural rights; just legal privilege. But we obviously can get upset over these things because they are infringements upon natural right. Life, liberty, property; I will always have the right to defend these things, to seek these things. If government infringes upon it, I can rightfully get upset and fight back. The only way for that to be true is if natural rights exist.
    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. #84
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's more than just preference though, the understanding and accepting of natural rights is of profound importance. It's the limiter of government. It says that we have just reason to stand and fight for our rights, that we don't have to accept things as they are. If we don't have a thing called natural rights, then one couldn't believe that a slave should ever get upset over being a slave. They have to right to anything else but what they are. If the government acts against us, and starts throwing us in jail for whatever reason, we can't be upset about it because there are not natural rights; just legal privilege. But we obviously can get upset over these things because they are infringements upon natural right. Life, liberty, property; I will always have the right to defend these things, to seek these things. If government infringes upon it, I can rightfully get upset and fight back. The only way for that to be true is if natural rights exist.
    See, there you go again. You keep claiming there are natural rights, yet you have never defended them. In fact, I see exactly where you're going wrong, you're working from a conclusion, then trying to backfill with philosophical nonsense to bolster your preconceived conclusion. You proved it in your last sentence.

    The problem is, you have to demonstrate that natural rights exist to begin with, not as an afterthought. How do you know they exist? How do you tell what they are? How do you reach these conclusions through logic and reason? Where is your evidence?

    What you're doing is no different than Christians from centuries past demanding that the Earth must be the center of the universe because in their way of thinking, God wouldn't do it any other way. It never occurred to them that their entire philosophy might be flawed.
    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!

  5. #85
    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
    It's more than just preference though, the understanding and accepting of natural rights is of profound importance. It's the limiter of government. It says that we have just reason to stand and fight for our rights, that we don't have to accept things as they are. If we don't have a thing called natural rights, then one couldn't believe that a slave should ever get upset over being a slave. They have to right to anything else but what they are. If the government acts against us, and starts throwing us in jail for whatever reason, we can't be upset about it because there are not natural rights; just legal privilege. But we obviously can get upset over these things because they are infringements upon natural right. Life, liberty, property; I will always have the right to defend these things, to seek these things. If government infringes upon it, I can rightfully get upset and fight back. The only way for that to be true is if natural rights exist.
    A lot of Christians believe that morality can only be measured against an objective standard. They argue that atheists cannot be moral because they don't have the same standards. You are basically giving the same argument right here.

    A slave wants to be free because it would make his life better, but that is the same as a guy working his way up the corporate ladder because he wants more money. We all want our lives to continually get better. This stems from our instinct, not a philosophical concept.

    What I am curious about is why you think you need something outside of you to try and make things more to your preference? Ultimately, whether you believe it or not, it comes from within you. You have some ideas and an emotional bond to those ideas and that is the only source of your (or anyone else's) fight for a better world.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 03-02-10 at 12:37 PM.

  6. #86
    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 Hatuey View Post
    Rights are an invention of man. So no. They are not natural at all.
    No, they aren't. If society did not exist and we all individually had a structure based on simple communication you would still have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit(not guaranteed acquisition) of happiness. There would still be those that would impose their will against your rights and there would still be those that would fight for them, the difference is that under a social contract you appoint others to do so, the extent of their laws is the difference. In other words, whether a government is minimal or authoritarian you have natural rights, that they are denied to you by force or coercion or by law does not invalidate them, it simply means that someone is committing an injustice against your rights.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #87
    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
    A lot of Christians believe that morality can only be measured against an objective standard. They argue that atheists cannot be moral because they don't have the same standards. You are basically giving the same argument right here.
    And some Islamists don't recognize the right to life of infadels, some athiests condescend to believers, my point here, morals and religion are compatible but not dependent upon each other. You either have a solid morality or you don't.

    A slave wants to be free because it would make his life better, but that is the same as a guy working his way up the corporate ladder because he wants more money. We all want our lives to continually get better. This stems from our instinct, not a philosophical concept.
    Freedom is the desired state of all living creatures, not exclusively man. That being said slaves understand their humanity and want it to be recognized, even to this day, to deny others their due liberty through either socially or government imposed slavery(China, Cuba...etc.) is to violate natural rights.

    What I am curious about is why you think you need something outside of you to try and make things more to your preference? Ultimately, whether you believe it or not, it comes from within you. You have some ideas and an emotional bond to those ideas and that is the only source of your (or anyone else's) fight for a better world.
    Thus, his rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are proven, if we didn't have those rights he would have no differing opinion or thought, as he wouldn't be at liberty to do so.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #88
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    12-28-11 @ 05:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    131

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Me thinks the Founders of our Republic were and are correct.

    Our creator endows all of us with unalienable rights that are self-evident.

    They were also correct to codify said basic rights into a Republic governed by a Constitution to protect these rights from Gubment's potential attempts to encroach on them in the relentless quest for power, (as they had observed Gubments do through-out human history).

    The historical fact that other individuals or Gubments attempt to violate said God given rights we all possess doesn't mean the rights don't exist.

    The violation of basic God given rights may (and has) come historically from other individuals, but clearly the biggest historical risk is from an organized Gubment so the Founders inked 20 pages ta protect us from said Gubment they created as a Republic based upon the rule of law.

    The only way to remove this protection we all benifit from is to change the plain meaning of the language used by the Founders to codify said rights, (which modern Liberals* are in the process of doing), by packing the Judicial branch of Gubment (as set up by the Founders to intrepret the Constitution), with tyrants in black robes who will do just that if the modern Liberals* get their way.

    After all: what is the TRUE meaning of "is"????

    The other way is to burden said Gubment with additional Gubment created "rights" that create massive burdens sooooo great that said Gubment fails due to over reaching of said Gubment to provide said Gubment created "rights". This is called dilution, and the media and education system dominated by modern Liberals* do their part to confuse citizens about basic God given rights with Gubment created "rights".

    Obamaprompter, (the modern Liberal* messiah), is now leading this charge, with Nasty Nancy and Horrible Harry helpin' as much as possible. Will they succeeed in our destruction? Who really knows? Likely not: IMHO due to the basic strength of the system the Founders created.

    This current crisis would never have been possible without the decades long cooperation of the NEA, (who supports Democrats and Liberals*), by failing to properly educate our citizens as to the true nature of this great Republic. (To uphold a rule of law that restricts the Gubment from infringing upon all of our basic God given rights). BTW: the NEA also provides funds to Liberal* Democrats as well.

    Instead the modern Liberal* Democrat controlled NEA sees to it that teachers focus on the public education of our children about all aspects of homosexuality and man caused global warming or other tangential Liberal* agendas designed to divide, confuse and cripple the Republic that our Founders created.

    The modern Liberal* controlled "main stream media", (now haeded for bankruptcy), continues this flow of cool aid to the masses and the predictable result is the recent, (2006) election of a very Liberal* Democrat controlled Congress and a very inexperienced but very Liberal* and very beholding POTUS, (2008) that works hard to undo what was done for all of us in the late 1700s that has resulted in the Greatest Country that has ever existed.

    How will this all work out?

    Hard to know at this juncture.

    The process of self correcting, (as designed by the Founders), has begun and the last three off cycle elections in Virgina, New Jersy, and Massachusetts are showing promise of a needed reckoning that may come, (and is likely on the way, IMHO).

    (*) Modern Liberals who dominate the Democrat party and the main stream non Fox media now control two of the three branches of Gubment and have much more in common with Karl Marx, (then classical Liberals: which the Founders of this Great Country were), and most Americans are.

    Dr. Weiner pointedly asks the spot on question: "Is Liberalism a mental disorder?" (He means modern Liberals*)

    Now that is worth thinking about a wee bit, eh?

  9. #89
    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
    No, they aren't. If society did not exist and we all individually had a structure based on simple communication you would still have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit(not guaranteed acquisition) of happiness. There would still be those that would impose their will against your rights and there would still be those that would fight for them, the difference is that under a social contract you appoint others to do so, the extent of their laws is the difference. In other words, whether a government is minimal or authoritarian you have natural rights, that they are denied to you by force or coercion or by law does not invalidate them, it simply means that someone is committing an injustice against your rights.
    Society is defined as a set of relations between people. You cannot argue as if there were no other people and then mention people.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    And some Islamists don't recognize the right to life of infadels, some athiests condescend to believers, my point here, morals and religion are compatible but not dependent upon each other. You either have a solid morality or you don't.
    In other words, other people's morals are not compatible with your morals. This doesn't really prove or disprove anything. In fact I could use it to argue that it is not self evident or more people would have come to the same conclusions as Locke, but it remains a uniquely European and American concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Freedom is the desired state of all living creatures, not exclusively man. That being said slaves understand their humanity and want it to be recognized, even to this day, to deny others their due liberty through either socially or government imposed slavery(China, Cuba...etc.) is to violate natural rights.
    When slavery was abolished in the US, many slaves did not leave their plantations because they liked it there. Wanting freedom is not always natural. Many animals have to go through rehabilitation after living with humans to relearn how to life in the wild and be free. Wanting freedom is a learned behavior. Wanting a better life is innate. Some animals and people will put up with a lot of stuff if their food and survival is insured.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Thus, his rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are proven, if we didn't have those rights he would have no differing opinion or thought, as he wouldn't be at liberty to do so.
    Having an emotional bond to a concept and wanting it realized can be used to justify any philosophy.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 03-02-10 at 01:02 PM.

  10. #90
    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
    What difference does it make, this is a conceptual discussion, you have to allow for theoreticals in it's debate. If someone implanted electrodes in your brain and could use them to make you do or think anything that they wanted, what happens to your "rights"? Are they taken away? Why or why not? You're the one that made the claim that they cannot be taken away, I want to see if you can actually defend it or if you just like repeating the claim over and over.
    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.
    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."

Page 9 of 36 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •