• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Proposed: Securing unalienable rights and promoting maximum liberty

Check all statements that apply


  • Total voters
    12
No they're not the same

God given means god given. Natural rights mean that they are derived from human's natural state. Unalienable says nothing about the source of rights but merely describes a characteristic of the right(s).

I say they are the same as I have defined them. You are welcome to define them any way you choose and or pick a term that describes what they are. Or not. But until somebody is willing to debate the concept with me and the few others who acknowledge the existence of unalienable rights as I have defined them, we are stuck on petty semantics and will get nowhere.

It doesn't matter what term or phrase we use. What matters is the concept that the term or phrase means. So I ask you again to define the terms in a coherent way that others will understand what you mean.
 
I say they are the same as I have defined them. You are welcome to define them any way you choose and or pick a term that describes what they are. Or not.

No, individuals (neither you nor I) don't get to define what words mean. They get their meaning from being commonly understood (ie common usage) by large #'s of people to mean something and not by you claiming they mean what you say they mean.

It doesn't matter what term or phrase we use. What matters is the concept that the term or phrase means. So I ask you again to define the terms in a coherent way that others will understand what you mean.

Then stop insisting we use your preferred terms and give them the meaning you insist they be given.

And you can ask me as many times as you wish, but I am not going to frame the issue in the way you prefer. I will argue for rights in the manner *I* prefer.
 
No, individuals (neither you nor I) don't get to define what words mean. They get their meaning from being commonly understood (ie common usage) by large #'s of people to mean something and not by you claiming they mean what you say they mean.



Then stop insisting we use your preferred terms and give them the meaning you insist they be given.

And you can ask me as many times as you wish, but I am not going to frame the issue in the way you prefer. I will argue for rights in the manner *I* prefer.

Look. When you're ready to discuss the concept, get back to me. I am not interested in derailing the discussion with a silly argument over what term is used to describe the concept. You have refused to furnish your own term or definition for my terms, so as long as your only argument is I'm wrong without any rationale for why I am wrong, your argument is not useful.
 
No they're not the same

God given means god given. Natural rights mean that they are derived from human's natural state. Unalienable says nothing about the source of rights but merely describes a characteristic of the right(s).





If you don't like those definitions, then how about this one:



Rights that all humans beings SHOULD possess, that SHOULD be recognized, enumerated and protected by any good government, because those rights are in accord with the nature of human existence and needs.

AKA the right to Life, Liberty and Property, and those rights that clearly stem from the fundamental three.
 
Look. When you're ready to discuss the concept, get back to me. I am not interested in derailing the discussion with a silly argument over what term is used to describe the concept. You have refused to furnish your own term or definition for my terms, so as long as your only argument is I'm wrong without any rationale for why I am wrong, your argument is not useful.

I have discussed the concept and argued against it while presenting and explaining what I think is a better understanding of the true nature of rights as something that is socially-constructed. As a member of this convention, I am under no obligation to accept the concepts you present and I am completely at liberty to criticize your concepts and present concepts of my own.
 
Well, I guess I'm going to have to finish writing my Little Red Book and organize that coup after all...


:)
 
If you don't like those definitions, then how about this one:



Rights that all humans beings SHOULD possess, that SHOULD be recognized, enumerated and protected by any good government, because those rights are in accord with the nature of human existence and needs.

AKA the right to Life, Liberty and Property, and those rights that clearly stem from the fundamental three.

As someone who believes that rights are a human-created social construction, I like that a lot better particularly the use of the word SHOULD as it implies that rights require some sort of consensus from the people who will be forced by their govt to abide by the notion. However, I disagree with the notion that rights are "in accord with the nature of human existence and needs". I don't see rights as something that is inherent in human nature or something that our nature imbues us with through some unexplainable process. They are merely something which is so widely recognized to be good things to protect that we have agreed, as a group, to protect them.

We all want to live and we all want to be free, so we agree that we have a right to live and be free. We will probably have a lot of agreement when it comes to what is a right and should be protected but because we're different people with difference experiences, values, and world views, we will probably never agree on the philosphical basis of rights and the source of those rights. However, we need not agree on that. The constitution does not need to, nor should it even try to, define the source of rights. It only needs to identify rights as best we can and limit the govt's ability to infringe on them (such as by subjecting them to tests like "strict scrutiny")
 
Last edited:
I have discussed the concept and argued against it while presenting and explaining what I think is a better understanding of the true nature of rights as something that is socially-constructed. As a member of this convention, I am under no obligation to accept the concepts you present and I am completely at liberty to criticize your concepts and present concepts of my own.

I'll just refer you to my previous posts which you didn't hear or represent accurately either.
 
I'll just refer you to my previous posts which you didn't hear or represent accurately either.

I read and responded to all of them. You haven't addressed anything I've said as demonstrated by your claim that I haven't heard what you've said

You'll just have to deal with the fact that some members, myself include, completely reject the concept of natural rights that you're promoting
 
If you don't like those definitions, then how about this one:



Rights that all humans beings SHOULD possess, that SHOULD be recognized, enumerated and protected by any good government, because those rights are in accord with the nature of human existence and needs.

AKA the right to Life, Liberty and Property, and those rights that clearly stem from the fundamental three.

And then we get bogged down in what is a SHOULD. :)

I will still argue for my definition of 'unalienable rights' (by whatever term we choose to call these) as what requires no contribution or participation by any other. If I am not requiring any contribution by any other and require no involuntary participation in any way of any other, then whatever I think, believe, speak, or act or however I choose to use my private property is my unalienable right to do.

Whatever does require contribution or participation, voluntary or involuntary, by any other person is subject to scrutiny and possible regulation.
 
And then we get bogged down in what is a SHOULD. :)

I will still argue for my definition of 'unalienable rights' (by whatever term we choose to call these) as what requires no contribution or participation by any other. If I am not requiring any contribution by any other and require no involuntary participation in any way of any other, then whatever I think, believe, speak, or act or however I choose to use my private property is my unalienable right to do.

Whatever does require contribution or participation, voluntary or involuntary, by any other person is subject to scrutiny and possible regulation.


I don't really care how it is defined, or whether people cite God, Nature, philosophy or ethics or what have you.... as long as those three rights and the rights that naturally stem from them are enshrined and respected as something that should not be infringed upon, neither by a small elite, nor by the momentary whim of a mere majority.
 
I don't really care how it is defined, or whether people cite God, Nature, philosophy or ethics or what have you.... as long as those three rights and the rights that naturally stem from them are enshrined and respected as something that should not be infringed upon, neither by a small elite, nor by the momentary whim of a mere majority.

I think you and I are close to an agreement on that. But we will have to agree on the definition. I DO care how it is defined because how it is defined will have so much bearing on how it is interpreted and enforced by those given authority to do so. I want as little wiggle room for a different or self-serving interpretation as possible.
 
I don't really care how it is defined, or whether people cite God, Nature, philosophy or ethics or what have you.... as long as those three rights and the rights that naturally stem from them are enshrined and respected as something that should not be infringed upon, neither by a small elite, nor by the momentary whim of a mere majority.

That is my point!! Well, basically

The OP is arguing that in order to protect rights, we must believe in a specific concept to support those rights. Like you, I don't see that as necessary. We can merely identify those rights (to the greatest extent possible) and require the govt to protect them and not infringe on them (with certain limitations)

He seems to believe that is the only way to ensure that govt does not "creep" into infringing on those rights. IMO, there is no language which guarantees against that. That is the responsibility of "We, the people"
 
Inalienable rights, rights that cannot be transferred, what one is born with and dies with, natural and/or God given rights.
Human rights, shelter, food, clothing, basic necessities and protection can and is afforded by a society of sorts.
Yes, no, may be?
What was the question again?
 
Inalienable rights, rights that cannot be transferred, what one is born with and dies with, natural and/or God given rights.
Human rights, shelter, food, clothing, basic necessities and protection can and is afforded by a society of sorts.
Yes, no, may be?
What was the question again?

Except for the child that the adult brings into the world--and in the interest of Human Rights, that adult should be held responsible for the needs of that child--there is no unalienable right for somebody or others to provide us with shelter, food, clothing, basic necessities. It would be our unalienable right to be able to lawfully and ethically seek to acquire these for ourselves or accept the voluntary generosity of others.

And society can choose to provide certain humanitarian services for those who need it, but this should always be the choice of the people to do voluntarily and not the prerogative of the federal government to dictate.
 
Last edited:
And then we get bogged down in what is a SHOULD. :)

I will still argue for my definition of 'unalienable rights' (by whatever term we choose to call these) as what requires no contribution or participation by any other. If I am not requiring any contribution by any other and require no involuntary participation in any way of any other, then whatever I think, believe, speak, or act or however I choose to use my private property is my unalienable right to do.

Whatever does require contribution or participation, voluntary or involuntary, by any other person is subject to scrutiny and possible regulation.

Argue all you want. But please understand a lot of us are uncomfortable with that and will not support it.
 
I say they are the same as I have defined them. You are welcome to define them any way you choose and or pick a term that describes what they are. Or not. But until somebody is willing to debate the concept with me and the few others who acknowledge the existence of unalienable rights as I have defined them, we are stuck on petty semantics and will get nowhere.

It doesn't matter what term or phrase we use. What matters is the concept that the term or phrase means. So I ask you again to define the terms in a coherent way that others will understand what you mean.
As I understand things, some rights may be inalienable (or unalienable if you prefer), but that cannot be proven.
Some rights may be god-given, but that cannot be proven either.
And some rights may be natural, but THAT cannot be proven.

So to say that a certain set of rights are all three seems at the least equally unprovable, especially since it was ALSO my understanding that while a right might possibly be all three, they are in no way interdependent.

I mean, if you're talking a god-given right, then god could just as easily take said right away.
If you're talking about a natural right, then if/when we transfer our consciousness into a different form/container (whether we're talking a some "heaven" analog or a technological container at some point in the future is of little bearing on that) then our nature changes, and thus our natural rights change.
And if you're talking about inalienable rights, I would argue that any right I can think of thus far can be removed from you (albeit doing so may result in your death).

That said, I DO think that there are some rights that cannot be removed from us unless we are killed - thus, they cannot be taken from us when we are still alive unless we voluntarily give them up.

Granted many people give up rights if they are threatened with death...
 
I agree that the constitution should protect rights to life, breathing, thinking etc etc etc. However I do not believe they are natural rights. So I reject the concept in the poll

I also believe that the concept of human rights comes from society itself. They arise from the people. The government are the people, and so it is up to the government to define what these rights are.

In terms of what the constitution should protect, I think we can include multiple rights under broader umbrellas. If we have to specify each and every one, it'll be pages and pages.

EDIT: aaaannd I accidently clicked the wrong checkbox lol....

think about this, anyone or any entity that has the power of rights creation, ...also has the power to deny to or take away rights.

so if government has the power to define rights, then it can give them to some and not others, since it hold the keys to that power.

natural rights are unwritten law, and no one/entity has power over them to create or deny anyone those rights.....

when you have the power to create, you also have the power to destroy.
 
ahhh!... the unraveling of the constitutional convention.

this is a prime example of why a constitutional convention of the states should never take place.
 
ahhh!... the unraveling of the constitutional convention.

this is a prime example of why a constitutional convention of the states should never take place.

Most of us aren't unraveling.
 
ahhh!... the unraveling of the constitutional convention.

this is a prime example of why a constitutional convention of the states should never take place.
Explain, please, why you think this is unraveling.
 
Explain, please, why you think this is unraveling.

our current Constitution embodies the principles of the declaration of independence.

there are those who do not want our Constitution tied to those principles, those maxims, those self evident truths.

instead of rule of law, they wish for people to be law among themselves....they wish for democracy, while others want to return to a true republic structure of 1788.

we have for the most part people who want to create a Constitution from opposites ends of the spectrum.

already the problems have begun....... national vs federal , and positive rights vs negative rights.

its going to be fun for me, to see people argue their positions, of why a central government should leave the people alone vs why we should be subjects of a central government.
 
our current Constitution embodies the principles of the declaration of independence.

there are those who do not want our Constitution tied to those principles, those maxims, those self evident truths.

instead of rule of law, they wish for people to be law among themselves....they wish for democracy, while others want to return to a true republic structure of 1788.

we have for the most part people who want to create a Constitution from opposites ends of the spectrum.

already the problems have begun....... national vs federal , and positive rights vs negative rights.

it going to be fun for me, to see people argue their positions, of why a central government should leave the people alone vs why we should be subjects of a central government.
Possibly we should codify no rights whatsoever, beyond the right to not be harmed involuntarily.

Of course, determining what that means is then a serious issue...

But basically the judicial system would have to build up case law on the subject, or refer to past case law.

Then the legislature/executive would need to add **** to the constitution if the situation warranted.

Of course I suspect that's where we got the bill of rights in the first place?
 
think about this, anyone or any entity that has the power of rights creation, ...also has the power to deny to or take away rights.

so if government has the power to define rights, then it can give them to some and not others, since it hold the keys to that power.

natural rights are unwritten law, and no one/entity has power over them to create or deny anyone those rights.....

when you have the power to create, you also have the power to destroy.

I don't see anyone proposing that we give the government the power to create rights.

The whole idea is just a piece of fiction
 
Possibly we should codify no rights whatsoever, beyond the right to not be harmed involuntarily.

Of course, determining what that means is then a serious issue...

But basically the judicial system would have to build up case law on the subject, or refer to past case law.

Then the legislature/executive would need to add **** to the constitution if the situation warranted.

Of course I suspect that's where we got the bill of rights in the first place?

Hamilton and Madison both state the Constitution of 1788 was a bill of rights itself..why, because it delegated no powers tot he federal government concerning the personal life's of the people...therefore its impossible for the federal government to violate rights of the people.

however the anti-federalist were not please with the Constitution and thought it granted to much power to the new government, Madison stated a bill of rights [restrictions on government] would be written and added to the Constitution later if the anti-federalist would go along and ratify the constitution.

3 1/2 years after the Constitution was ratified, the bill of rights was also....restricting the federal government further
 
Back
Top Bottom