• 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!

Are Rights Natural?

Are Rights Natural?

  • Total voters
    50
Ethereal said:
A society is nothing more than an abstraction, the same as a right. The only difference is that a right is based upon human nature, while the other is nebulous and variable.
Click to expand...

Society is nebulous and variable. Every society has its own culture. I see no conflict here. But yeah, its just an abstract idea therefore I can assign it any value that I wish because it only exists in my mind, that is human nature.

Ethereal said:
You're placing the needs of an abstract social entity over the sovereignty of a real individual. That's socialist tyranny.
Click to expand...

Yes I am and I am proud of that fact. You may think it is immoral, but you have a vote and so do I and unless those laws regarding voting change, we are free to each think and act how we wish. If the laws do change, we are free to try and change them back since thats how human nature works. But it is an expression of force, not inherent right.

Ethereal said:
Yes, rights have always harmed the ability of tyrants to violate the individual.

I never said you couldn't have your own opinion. I'm just saying you should base it upon reality. The philosophy of natural rights was the product of hundreds of brilliant minds over hundreds of years. If you want to delude yourself into thinking you've encapsulated it with soundbites I'm not going to stop you; it is your right, after all...
Click to expand...

Your definition of tyrants seems interesting. I will have to ponder it for a while. Yep. We each are free to pursue what we wish because our society allows it because people generally agree that it is a good thing.

There are some very real practical benefits to this philosophy. I am in debt to those good ideas.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Okay, that's reasonable. I would simply define it as something arising from nature, and nature is basically everything. You can isolate certain parts of nature, too, like human nature. Human nature would be anything inherent to all humans, just like something "natural" would be anything inherent to the universe.
Click to expand...

Ok i was just commentating on how that word is thrown around.

To answer the original question i think there are if you like natural rights even animals have an idea of fairness etc and nearly all laws etc are built from these.They just arent concrete.
 
megaprogman said:
Mostly it involves around the idea that taxes are theft and not legit unless its only used for certain purposes which are very narrowly defined by a the same people who tend to use the "taxes are theft" phrase.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're collecting taxes to fund unconstitutional government programs, how is it not "theft"?

This goes back to socialized medicine.

I have no issues with the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, I have no idea what the ninth is referring to but its probably judicial precedent of some sort, and the tenth should have been worded better since it seems to allow for wild differences in interpretation.
Click to expand...

That's why we have an Amendment process. If you want socialized medicine, then you need the States to agree to it. This ensures that the Federal government cannot simply thrust national programs onto the entire country. Do you really think it's a good idea to invest that much power into such a small group of people? Right now, less than a thousand politicians can exercise immediate influence over 360 million Americans. I find that disturbing...
 
Ethereal said:
Well, if you're collecting taxes to fund unconstitutional government programs, how is it not "theft"?

That's why we have an Amendment process. If you want socialized medicine, then you need the States to agree to it. This ensures that the Federal government cannot simply thrust national programs onto the entire country. Do you really think it's a good idea to invest that much power into such a small group of people? Right now, less than a thousand politicians can exercise immediate influence over 360 million Americans. I find that disturbing...
Click to expand...

Theft is a moral concept and its going to be thought of differently from person to person. You might consider it to be theft, I consider that sometimes the needs of society outweigh the needs of a person and therefore it is just because it would do vastly more good than harm overall. Also, I don't consider the constitution to be the moral standard for anything. It is a legal document, not a moral one.

If the supreme court thinks we need an amendment, than we do. Anything we pass at this point is going to get challenged in court and will probably get all the way to the justices. That's their decision though, not mine.

I don't really see the harm in investing that power into an agency though. The results from Europe and Canada look promising.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
If the supreme court thinks we need an amendment, than we do. Anything we pass at this point is going to get challenged in court and will probably get all the way to the justices. That's their decision though, not mine.
Click to expand...
Wait, what?

It's the job of congress to determine if we need amendments. And also their job to write those amendments.
The supreme court is tasked with determining the constutionality of laws and interpreting the constitution.
I suppose if an amendment were unconstitutional...but wait, an amendment would be PART of the constution....and thus incapable of being unconstuitutional, except in that it contridicted previous (and unchanged) amendments?

Mayhaps I need to read up on the respective jobs of the congress and the supreme court...
 
megaprogman said:
Theft is a moral concept and its going to be thought of differently from person to person. You might consider it to be theft, I consider that sometimes the needs of society outweigh the needs of a person and therefore it is just because it would do vastly more good than harm overall.

If the supreme court thinks we need an amendment, than we do. Anything we pass at this point is going to get challenged in court and will probably get all the way to the justices. That's their decision though, not mine.
Click to expand...

Oh boy...

I got news for you. The Supreme Court does not Amend the Constitution. That would be the Congress and the States...
 
I was referring to the supreme court declaring it constitutional or unconstitutional, which would mean that congress and states would have to write an amendment and pass it if it really wanted that law.

looks like I should have phrased it better.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
And sometimes the results are good, like socialized health care. The way I see it is that it can be used for both good and bad, like any other ideal. Thats why I am uninterested in logical purity and more interested in results.
Click to expand...

Well you need to be slightly careful there cause the ends don't always justify the means.
 
VanceMack said:
oh...my...heck...

seriously?

The CONCEPT of RIGHTS is an IDEA...nothing more. I have said that from the OUTSET. It is absolutely intangible.

and NOW you say...gosh...its just an abstract idea...I dont know why people have such a hard time with it...

I...I...

I give up...
Click to expand...

Please do. You're obviously completely uninterested in fostering debate and claiming rights to be some magical entity. What rights are is a powerful tool of the people to constrain government. Just because something is an abstract idea doesn't mean it's worthless. Humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to understand and use the abstract. Which is why you can derive natural rights from pure reason.
 
Ikari said:
Well you need to be slightly careful there cause the ends don't always justify the means.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. It is a case by case basis thing.

Like the post office or public libraries.

I pretty much believe those concepts work for almost all situations, but sometimes they do not. For me the practicals of the matter are more important than the ideals of it and these ideals are great when they do promote what they are trying to. However, sometimes they oppose something that would promote more life and liberty (a healthy population pretty much covers both of those things). But no logical system can ever account for every possible thing, so sometimes we need to help it along with exceptions.
 
Last edited:
Here is how it goes:

Natural - freedom, liberty, lawlessness, anarchy

Civilization - Man's attempt to live together while maximizing and securing our rights.

BTW, for anyone really interested in this subject. I would highly recommend Thomas Paine's, "Rights of Man."

He breaks it down by saying when we were created we were free and equal. Only after that did we work to control, limit, or oppress others.
 
Ikari said:
Please do. You're obviously completely uninterested in fostering debate and claiming rights to be some magical entity. What rights are is a powerful tool of the people to constrain government. Just because something is an abstract idea doesn't mean it's worthless. Humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to understand and use the abstract. Which is why you can derive natural rights from pure reason.
Click to expand...

Maybe if people didnt throw around words like 'rights' like they knew something about it, the word might have meaning. If you want to get into a moralistic view on how things 'should' be in a perfect world...fine...we can do that. Of course...there are a lot of people that will challenge you on the foundation of even the CONCEPT of morals...but as an IDEA...as a GOAL...wonderful. Hell...we wouldnt even disagree...

But we have a somewhat more concrete understanding of 'rights'...at least in this country. Our 'rights' are specifically listed. They are enforced. The word here actually has meaning and consequence when violations occur.

To assign mythical 'human rights' globally is frankly, idiotic. Time...history...reality proves it.

If you want to work for a fantastic ideal concept...great. But dont pretend that YOUR rights mean a damn thing to people who live on the other side of the globe.
 
VanceMack said:
Maybe if people didnt throw around words like 'rights' like they knew something about it, the word might have meaning. If you want to get into a moralistic view on how things 'should' be in a perfect world...fine...we can do that. Of course...there are a lot of people that will challenge you on the foundation of even the CONCEPT of morals...but as an IDEA...as a GOAL...wonderful. Hell...we wouldnt even disagree...

But we have a somewhat more concrete understanding of 'rights'...at least in this country. Our 'rights' are specifically listed. They are enforced. The word here actually has meaning and consequence when violations occur.

To assign mythical 'human rights' globally is frankly, idiotic. Time...history...reality proves it.

If you want to work for a fantastic ideal concept...great. But dont pretend that YOUR rights mean a damn thing to people who live on the other side of the globe.
Click to expand...

I thought you were done. My rights are important to me, people on the other side of the globe are not. They'll have to fight for recognition of their own rights if that's what they want. Again, doesn't mean they don't have rights. There is a base set of rights common to all humans.
 
Ikari said:
It's not running away. But the only way you can arrive to your insulting claims you make in childish ways is the abject rejection of any argument. In which case, there is no more debate. You won't entertain the idea of all humans being equal or having a base set of rights. And in the end, you've resorted to just childish insults, at which point we're done. If you can't respond in an intellectually honest manner, is there really a point to continuing on? I don't think so. Arguing with a child isn't very productive on the whole.
Click to expand...

I won't accept it because YOU HAVEN'T SUPPORTED IT IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY! You just keep repeating it over and over like that somehow justifies your claims and it doesn't. I keep asking you how you justify this belief, how you know that these rights exist, how you know what these rights are and you entirely ignore the questions.

If it's abusive to actually require you to back up your claims, then color me abusive.
 
Ethereal said:
You're such a snide individual. No one is impressed by you...
Click to expand...

I'm not here to be impressive, but to get to actual, defensible answers and demonstrable truths. Funny how most people don't have either.
 
VanceMack said:
Based on WHAT???
Click to expand...

See, that's exactly the question I keep asking. What are these rights based on? Where do they come from? On what authority do they exist? How do they know they exist? How were they discovered? How do they figure out which ones are rights and which ones are wishful thinking? These are questions that never get answered and, when pressed, the questioner gets called names.

Ultimately, "natural rights" looks more like a religion than a well-reasoned, critically-examined credible position. Maybe that's what Ikari is afraid people are going to find out.
 
Cephus said:
See, that's exactly the question I keep asking. What are these rights based on? Where do they come from? On what authority do they exist? How do they know they exist? How were they discovered? How do they figure out which ones are rights and which ones are wishful thinking? These are questions that never get answered and, when pressed, the questioner gets called names.

Ultimately, "natural rights" looks more like a religion than a well-reasoned, critically-examined credible position. Maybe that's what Ikari is afraid people are going to find out.
Click to expand...

These rights are based on me attempting to physically harm the person that may try to take them away.

They exist because I say they do, rights only exist in the mind and they can only continue to exist with the use of violence.
 
Cephus said:
I won't accept it because YOU HAVEN'T SUPPORTED IT IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY! You just keep repeating it over and over like that somehow justifies your claims and it doesn't. I keep asking you how you justify this belief, how you know that these rights exist, how you know what these rights are and you entirely ignore the questions.

If it's abusive to actually require you to back up your claims, then color me abusive.
Click to expand...

I have, you've rejected anything which is counter to your preconceived notions. I've shown how the belief is justified, I've even pointed out philosophers whom developed some of the theory; you can read them if you want. I didn't ignore anything, you've ignored the argument and blatantly reject it without any amount of entertainment of the argument. So I don't know what you want. If you were just asking for proof and were justified in the quandary, I wouldn't call it abusive. It's abusive when you just start in with insults and outright rejection of all argument. It's not debate, it's not mature, it's not intellectually honest. That's all there is to say about it.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
These rights are based on me attempting to physically harm the person that may try to take them away.

They exist because I say they do, rights only exist in the mind and they can only continue to exist with the use of violence.
Click to expand...

Harry hits the nail on the head. Any right exists because you believe it. I'm glad one of the libertarians seem to get it.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
They exist because I say they do, rights only exist in the mind and they can only continue to exist with the use of violence.
Click to expand...

Exactly, they're subjective which is what I've been saying all along. They exist because you and the society in which you live want them to exist, not for any other reason.

Now if only you could convince some of the other libertarians.
 
Ikari said:
I have, you've rejected anything which is counter to your preconceived notions. I've shown how the belief is justified, I've even pointed out philosophers whom developed some of the theory; you can read them if you want. I didn't ignore anything, you've ignored the argument and blatantly reject it without any amount of entertainment of the argument. So I don't know what you want. If you were just asking for proof and were justified in the quandary, I wouldn't call it abusive. It's abusive when you just start in with insults and outright rejection of all argument. It's not debate, it's not mature, it's not intellectually honest. That's all there is to say about it.
Click to expand...

Really? Link me to the post where you explained all of those things. After all, you say you did it, it shouldn't be so hard.
 
Cephus said:
Really? Link me to the post where you explained all of those things. After all, you say you did it, it shouldn't be so hard.
Click to expand...

Why? You rejected it the first time through, why should I now expect you to accept arguments of Locke or Kant now? Go back if you want the information, but you've not shown a penchant for honest engagement in the discussion of natural rights. I've argued the basis of what natural rights can be, the difference between natural rights, legal rights, and social contract. I've put forth argument that rights are a check upon government power, and the necessities of rights. People seem to be caught up in the ideas of abstract. That because rights can be discovered through reason and because they are an abstract ideal that somehow they are worthless and can't exist in the least. But humans can understand and use the abstract and the notion of rights is incredibly useful, powerful, and necessary. But you're not interested, you get caught up on "abstract". And from that point on you reject all argument. You can go back and find where I made these arguments, but I doubt your readiness to try to engage on an intellectually honest level.
 
Cephus said:
Exactly, they're subjective which is what I've been saying all along. They exist because you and the society in which you live want them to exist, not for any other reason.

Now if only you could convince some of the other libertarians.
Click to expand...

I think some kinds of societies require rights in order for it to exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom