• 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 rights of man and the duty of citizens

Master PO said:
the code is written law.

so we have rights which are unwritten law, which the government recognizes and then creates written law
Code: 
 to secure [enforce] those rights.

but no rights are granted/created by the code.[/QUOTE]

Rights are not law. Please provide some definition that shows they are.

I never said rights are granted or created by the code (law.) I said rights are codified and this enables their protection and adjudication.
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
Rights are not law. Please provide some definition that shows they are.

I never said rights are granted or created by the code (law.) I said rights are codified and this enables their protection and adjudication.
Click to expand...


cod·i·fy
ˈkädəˌfī,ˈkōdəˌfī/Submit
verb
past tense: codified; past participle: codified
arrange (laws or rules) into a systematic code.
synonyms: systematize, systemize, organize, arrange, order, structure; More
arrange according to a plan or system.
"Verdi helped codify an international operatic culture"



rights are unwritten law, and it consist of Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.

you cannot codify into code, what is unwritten.

unwritten law [rights of the people] is not subject to law.
 
Master PO said:
it seems you don't even know the basics!

people have many many rights which are not enumerated, but all fall under the 9th amendment.
Click to expand...

Sure, I agree, but people are not entitled to those things by law and they are not protected by law. Eating? The right to reproduce? Speaking? I wasnt thinking about the 1A, I was thinking basic communication. They govt is not tasked, by the Const, to protect our rights to eat or communicate or have offspring.
 
Lursa said:
Sure, I agree, but people are not entitled to those things by law and they are not protected by law. Eating? The right to reproduce? Speaking? I wasnt thinking about the 1A, I was thinking basic communication. They govt is not tasked, by the Const, to protect our rights to eat or communicate or have offspring.
Click to expand...

the purpose of government is to secure rights, that being the end of government
 
Master PO said:
cod·i·fy
ˈkädəˌfī,ˈkōdəˌfī/Submit
verb
past tense: codified; past participle: codified
arrange (laws or rules) into a systematic code.
synonyms: systematize, systemize, organize, arrange, order, structure; More
arrange according to a plan or system.
"Verdi helped codify an international operatic culture"



rights are unwritten law, and it consist of Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.

you cannot codify into code, what is unwritten.

unwritten law [rights of the people] is not subject to law.
Click to expand...

LOL

Er, in case you havent noticed, our rights ARE written.

Rights are not 'unwritten law.'

Exactly how do 'abstract rights' fit into the defintion of 'law?'
Full Definition of law


a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law
b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law
c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe
d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law
e : control, authority
Law | Definition of Law by Merriam-Webster
Click to expand...

LMAO, who do you think is enforcing that 'binding?' THat controlling authority? For rights to exist within a society (except in people's thoughts)...ALL that is necessary. And yet you say it cannot be :doh

Good lord!
 
Lursa said:
LOL

Er, in case you havent noticed, our rights ARE written.

Rights are not 'unwritten law.'

Exactly how do 'abstract rights' fit into the defintion of 'law?'
Click to expand...

wrong, and this is why you get into trouble over the constitution and rights, rights are only recognized by the constitution, they are not written law meaning part of code.

rights do not arise from the constitution

Unwritten Law


West's Encyclopedia of American Law | 2005 | 700+ words
COPYRIGHT 2005 The Gale Group, Inc.
UNWRITTEN LAW

Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.

Most laws in America are written. The u.s. code, the code of federal regulations, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims of human conduct that the government has recognized and enforced.

Unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.

Much of international law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the rules of war governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the united nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.

In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In constitutional law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution. In commercial law the uniform commercial code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of common law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law.

Unwritten Law – FREE Unwritten Law information | Encyclopedia.com: Find Unwritten Law research
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
wrong, and this is why you get into trouble over the constitution and rights, rights are only recognized by the constitution, they are not written law meaning part of code.

rights do not arise from the constitution

Unwritten Law


West's Encyclopedia of American Law | 2005 | 700+ words
COPYRIGHT 2005 The Gale Group, Inc.
UNWRITTEN LAW

Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.

Most laws in America are written. The u.s. code, the code of federal regulations, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims of human conduct that the government has recognized and enforced.

Unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.

Much of international law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the rules of war governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the united nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.

In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In constitutional law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution. In commercial law the uniform commercial code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of common law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law.

Unwritten Law – FREE Unwritten Law information | Encyclopedia.com: Find Unwritten Law research
Click to expand...

Not a single thing there proves or even addresses the fact that those 'unwritten laws' are a man-made concept. It actually supports it.

You were claiming it was genetic. That is ridiculous but I was waiting for some sources....I did ask.
 
Lursa said:
Not a single thing there proves or even addresses the fact that those 'unwritten laws' are a man-made concept. It actually supports it.

You were claiming it was genetic. That is ridiculous but I was waiting for some sources....I did ask.
Click to expand...

you state rights are written law..OK PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS WRITTEN IN LAW!
 
This is the Sixth Amendment to our Constitution:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



How did that come about through nature?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Nice, you almost caught me in a knee-jerk response. Trying to twist terms.

Of course that is one of your usual tactics, and I almost fell for it.

Yes, we have the ability to do many things.

One of those is the ability to make choices, the exercise of free will.

We also have the ability to recognize inherent rights based on our nature as human beings. In that respect we are very different from most creatures we've encountered so far.

Unlike most creatures we can choose to do things contrary to instinctive behavior. We can also recognize our individual existence as having unique value worth preserving, or sacrificing to preserve in others.

Which brings me back to the natural right to self-defense of ourselves and those we value. I will take this action with or without the permission or agreement of others.

It is my innate right by the exercise of my free will and personal capability. It will remain my right to enforce as I choose until the day that I die.
Click to expand...

You clearly have demonstrated beyond any doubt that you DO NOT know the difference between a mere ability to perform a physical function and a legal right protected by law.
 
Lursa said:
They are valid. They are real as we have formed laws around them and use those laws to adjudicate, protect, and enforce those rights. Is marriage real? Valid? Of course...because we recognize it and

Just because they are a man-made construct doesnt mean they arent real. Is marriage real? Valid? Of course...because we recognize it and codify it and participate in (exercise) it. How about your legal recognition to drive a vehicle on public roads? Real? Valid? Enforceable?
Click to expand...
ok.. when most folks talked about man-made stuff, they are generally trying to downplay it or make it seem faked or inferior.....that's why i asked


the thing is... rights are not only those entitlements that are protected by law....and the way we protect our rights is to bar government from proscribing them.
the only rights that a re granted by government, are legal rights that are inherent to government.. .such as voting or having a jury trial, etc ...these things require government to exist, unlike other rights, such as the right to freely express yourself, possess and own property, to live and breathe, etc... which do not require government to exist.

basically put, our constitution(s) and society are a reflection of a very old maxim.. a very simple one, at that.... " that which is not proscribed, is permissible".
through the ages, man has come up with a variety of logical justifications for that maxim, and pretty much settled on the idea that some of our top rights are indeed simply part of our nature as humans.
we don't express ourselves because we have permission to.. we don't express ourselves because a philosopher concocted a a concept that said we do ( philosophers generally recognize and explain, not concoct)...we express ourselves because it's an inherent entitlement and ability.

for most of history of humans living under a government, the planet has lived under the opposite maxim... "that which is not permitted, is proscribed"... the united States greatest contribution to the planet, imo, is tuning the tide and having that maxim nearly universally adopted.
 
Frank Apisa said:
This is the Sixth Amendment to our Constitution:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



How did that come about through nature?
Click to expand...

it didn't... that's a legal right, not a natural right....
 
thrilla said:
:lamo....
Click to expand...

wow!!!!

Since John Locke popularized the idea of natural rights as a bridge between divine right of kings and democratic rule by the people - not one single person has been able to prove that such a concept actually exists in the real world beyond a mere belief. Not one.

So what do you and others here think you are capable of that some of the great minds of the world have not been able to accomplish in several centuries now?
 
Thrilla said:
that's what i was thinking when your post too...
Click to expand...

Since John Locke popularized the idea of natural rights as a bridge between divine right of kings and democratic rule by the people - not one single person has been able to prove that such a concept actually exists in the real world beyond a mere belief. Not one.

So what do you and others here think you are capable of that some of the great minds of the world have not been able to accomplish in several centuries now?
 
haymarket said:
Since John Locke popularized the idea of natural rights as a bridge between divine right of kings and democratic rule by the people - not one single person has been able to prove that such a concept actually exists in the real world beyond a mere belief. Not one.

So what do you and others here think you are capable of that some of the great minds of the world have not been able to accomplish in several centuries now?
Click to expand...

yes, i've heard you anti-rights shtick many times before.....and no, I won't entertain it again.....it's really not my fault that you think beliefs, concept and idea don't actually exist.

and really, there's really nothing I can say to a person who disavows 2500 years of philosophy to push their own warped political view... not a single word.
 
Thrilla said:
yes, i've heard you anti-rights shtick many times before.....and no, I won't entertain it again.....it's really not my fault that you think beliefs, concept and idea don't actually exist.

and really, there's really nothing I can say to a person who disavows 2500 years of philosophy to push their own warped political view... not a single word.
Click to expand...

They exist in the minds of the believer. And they protect no person in any way shape or form and are thus not rights until government decides to make them so.

2500 years of philosophy!!!!! Talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and then just when you think you have heard it all.... guess what follows? Yup - more talk followed by more talk and more talk and more talk. And one does not need to disavow philosophy because there the philosophers themselves do pretty fine doing just that changing their tune from time to time. The existentialists and nihilists did a number on your precious philosophy without folks like me needing to lift a finger.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Since John Locke popularized the idea of natural rights as a bridge between divine right of kings and democratic rule by the people - not one single person has been able to prove that such a concept actually exists in the real world beyond a mere belief. Not one.

So what do you and others here think you are capable of that some of the great minds of the world have not been able to accomplish in several centuries now?
Click to expand...

What is self evident needs no proof. :)
 
haymarket said:
They exist in the minds of the believer. And they protect no person in any way shape or form and are thus not rights until government decides to make them so.

2500 years of philosophy!!!!! Talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and then just when you think you have heard it all.... guys what follows? Yup - more talk followed by more talk and more talk and more talk. And one does not need to disavow philosophy because there the philosophers themselves do pretty fine doing just that changing their tune from time to time. The existentialists and nihilists did a number on your precious philosophy without folks like me needing to lift a finger.
Click to expand...

That is quite so and scientifically sensible. It appears we are born with a set of ideas of what are good and bad patterns of behavior. These are more or less backed by peer group pressure besides being adhered to more or less on one's own volition. They are the basis for most laws but require enforcement in larger societies, where group pressure is no longer successfully police. This is because the rules damage those that practice them, when others do not.
 
haymarket said:
They exist in the minds of the believer. And they protect no person in any way shape or form and are thus not rights until government decides to make them so.
Click to expand...
yes, we know you believe the government is the end all be all of all rights... much like hte religious fundamentalist believes that God is the end all be all of morality.

2500 years of philosophy!!!!! Talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and then just when you think you have heard it all.... guess what follows? Yup - more talk followed by more talk and more talk and more talk. And one does not need to disavow philosophy because there the philosophers themselves do pretty fine doing just that changing their tune from time to time. The existentialists and nihilists did a number on your precious philosophy without folks like me needing to lift a finger.
Click to expand...
like i said, there's nothing i can say to a person who chooses to disavow philosophy to push their own warped political view.
these are philosophical discussions, at their very core... so there's really nothing to be said to a person that disavows philosophy.
it's like having a discussion on God with an atheist...the discussion can go nowhere.

I think it's sad you don't believe in natural rights, as you lose out on a logical basis for rights.... but it's your right to believe in whatever you like ( oddly enough, the government has never given you permission or protected your right to believe what you want, but that's just another irony you have to contend with according to your position)
 
joG said:
What is self evident needs no proof. :)
Click to expand...

If it was so self evident people would not be arguing about it for the last several centuries.

Sorry, but that silly ace up your sleeve does NOT impress anybody who does not believe in your theory in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom