• 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

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
23,580
Reaction score
12,388
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Proposed: The purpose of the new Constitution should at a minimum secure the unalienable rights of the people and promote maximum individual liberty.

We've become bogged down in the Preamble thread over this single issue. So let's focus on this issue.

Some members reject the concept of God given aka natural aka unalienable rights.

God given aka natural aka unalienable rights,
for this purpose, are defined as human life, breathing, to think, to speak, to worship, to hope, to believe, to aspire, to create, etc., i.e. all those components and activity of humanity that require no involuntary contribution or participation from any other. Such requires only the non interference of others and should be inviolate.

Those members who reject the concept of unalienable rights seem to be unanimous in the concept that all human rights come from the government in place.

And some have rejected my definition of unalienable rights as given above.

Other members believe as strongly in a concept of God given aka natural aka unalienable rights, all seem to agree that the government should secure them and otherwise keep hands off, and most seem to have no problem with my definition as given above.

On the theory that if we cannot come to a consensus or at least compromise on this one issue, any effort to forge a Constitution will be futile, let's deal with it.
 
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....
 
Last edited:
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....

So to be clear, you reject the definition of 'natural rights' as that which we are or do that requires no involuntary contribution or participation by any other. You believe the government should have jurisdiction over that if a majority of people want it to have jurisdiction over that?

You condone the federal government being given power to determine that for us?
 
So to be clear, you reject the definition of 'natural rights' as that which we are or do that requires no involuntary contribution or participation by any other. You believe the government should have jurisdiction over that if a majority of people want it to have jurisdiction over that?

To be clear, I reject that certain rights are naturally inherent, or god given. (also, could you clarify 'no involuntary contribution' for me? - I confused myself with the double negatives). If a hermit lives alone in a cave he is able to live, dream, think, etc etc etc. However the entire concept of rights for the hermit is entirely useless. He certainly does not have inherent natural rights, he could easily be killed by wildlife, or addled by dementia. Nature does not respect his right to life, or his right to think. It takes an interaction with another being who acknowledges rights for the concept to take on any meaning.

If the relationship between him and the second being is benevolent, then they might agree on rights x,y,z. They might decide between them that each has the right to sleep in the others cave if their own cave gets flooded. That right is not natural, it predates neither them nor their interaction. It was created and assigned by mutual agreement through the process of interaction between the two. In the same way, the relationship between each of us in our new 'society' will be (hopefully) benevolent. So the rights that arise out of what is best for us should be codified.

You condone the federal government being given power to determine that for us?

I believe the federal government is us. The constitution was written by "We, the people". Power arises from the people.
 
To be clear, I reject that certain rights are naturally inherent, or god given. (also, could you clarify 'no involuntary contribution' for me? - I confused myself with the double negatives). If a hermit lives alone in a cave he is able to live, dream, think, etc etc etc. However the entire concept of rights for the hermit is entirely useless. He certainly does not have inherent natural rights, he could easily be killed by wildlife, or addled by dementia. Nature does not respect his right to life, or his right to think. It takes an interaction with another being who acknowledges rights for the concept to take on any meaning.

If the relationship between him and the second being is benevolent, then they might agree on rights x,y,z. They might decide between them that each has the right to sleep in the others cave if their own cave gets flooded. That right is not natural, it predates neither them nor their interaction. It was created and assigned by mutual agreement through the process of interaction between the two. In the same way, the relationship between each of us in our new 'society' will be (hopefully) benevolent. So the rights that arise out of what is best for us should be codified.

I believe the federal government is us. The constitution was written by "We, the people". Power arises from the people.

Agreed, but the federal government has chosen to do whatever it darn well pleases to anybody it pleases purely because of the way the Constitution is interpreted by opportunistic politicians and lawyers and others who wish to benefit at the expense of others.

Again think of what it means to be able to act, speak, aspire, benefit from opportunity, simply be who and what we are, etc. that requires no involuntary contribution or participation by any other person. The federal government should have no say in that whatsoever.

If what you do does not require any involuntary physical or material contribution of any kind and does not affect anybody else physically or materially, then it should be absolutely no business of the federal government.

In other words, except for necessary funding of the functions assigned to the federal government, and that should be fairly and equitably charged to all citizens, the government should not be able to lay a finger on any of my possessions or require that I hand any part of them over to somebody else. Nor should the federal government have any power to force me to provide my time, talent, energy, effort for the benefit of any other should I choose not to do so.

The people may or may not choose to impose the same limitations on their state and local governments.
 
Again think of what it means to be able to act, speak, aspire, benefit from opportunity, simply be who and what we are, etc. that requires no involuntary contribution or participation by any other person. The federal government should have no say in that whatsoever.

If the people (fed gov) don't acknowledge that these rights exist, then regardless of if they require involuntary contribution or not, then the rights don't exist. The people of North Korea don't have the right to free speech. We can say they have the right to free speech but that right is a) meaningless unless we govern NK and b) arises out of our interaction with the people in NK. The possession of the right of free speech is dependent on that right being bestowed by someone/something. Bestowal requires a second entity to acknowledge the bestowal, whether that is by the power of god, or power of the people.

Nor should the federal government have any power to force me to provide my time, talent, energy, effort for the benefit of any other should I choose not to do so.

In a mob of meerkats, the adults take turns keeping watch for predators. They give up their time, talent, energy and effort for the benefit of their 'society'. This behaviour is trained into them from a young age.

If even meerkats can understand that shared personal sacrifice is necessary for the wellbeing of a group, why can't libertarians...?
 
Last edited:
If the people (fed gov) don't acknowledge that these rights exist, then regardless of if they require involuntary contribution or not, then the rights don't exist. The people of North Korea don't have the right to free speech. We can say they have the right to free speech but that right is a) meaningless unless we govern NK and b) arises out of our interaction with the people in NK. The possession of the right of free speech is dependent on that right being bestowed by someone/something. Bestowal requires a second entity to acknowledge the bestowal, whether that is by the power of god, or power of the people.



In a mob of meerkats, the adults take turns keeping watch for predators. They give up their time, talent, energy and effort for the benefit of their 'society'. This behaviour is trained into them from a young age.

If even meerkats can understand that shared personal sacrifice is necessary for the wellbeing of a group, why can't libertarians...?

Personal sacrifice is by definition a VOLUNTARY act. It can even be a choice of a group to require it in order to participate in the group. But if the person is given no choice to not participate and go elsewhere to live his/her life, then it is neither sacrifice nor social contract but rather becomes involuntary servitude.
 
Personal sacrifice is by definition a VOLUNTARY act. It can even be a choice of a group to require it in order to participate in the group. But if the person is given no choice to not participate and go elsewhere to live his/her life, then it is neither sacrifice nor social contract but rather becomes involuntary servitude.

Sacrifice is not necessarily voluntary.

Regardless, your inclusion in society is voluntary. There will be pros and cons associated with that, as there is with any decision you make in your. Why partake in society at all? Because of the benefits that relate to living surrounded by your peers. However, these benefits by definition can only exist if there is contribution towards the group. That contribution may be a con, but it is the lynchpin on how societies function.

A lone zebra isn't forced to join a herd, and by joining a herd it makes itself (and the herd) more visible to predators. But without that con, then by definition the pro of safety in numbers could not even exist. The cons of society are what make the benefits possible.

I also want to say that I personally don't think there will be an agreement on this between the two sides, and efforts might be better spent finding a compromise between the two viewpoints rather than converting the other side. I understand compromise will be necessary during this process, and am absolutely willing to on many issues, I just have literally no idea how to find a midway point on this issue which seems so very binary....

(also apologies for all the animal analogies)
 
Sacrifice is always voluntary. Anything else is not sacrifice but theft, coercion, oppression, the strong taking whatever it wants from the weak.
 
Sacrifice is always voluntary. Anything else is not sacrifice but theft, coercion, oppression, the strong taking whatever it wants from the weak.

Yes and you volunteer to the 'sacrifice' of taxes by being included in society.

You volunteer to receive the benefits of society, but that also comes with the cons. You cannot have one without the other.
 
Yes and you volunteer to the 'sacrifice' of taxes by being included in society.

You volunteer to receive the benefits of society, but that also comes with the cons. You cannot have one without the other.

If I vote for the tax or agree to the law that imposes it, I am voluntarily sacrificing. Otherwise it is not a sacrifice but an involuntary confiscation of my property.
 
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....

I agree

The OP is under the misconception that if we don't subscribe to natural rights then we have to list all the rights that will be protected. I have no idea where the OP got this idea.
 
So to be clear, you reject the definition of 'natural rights' as that which we are or do that requires no involuntary contribution or participation by any other. You believe the government should have jurisdiction over that if a majority of people want it to have jurisdiction over that?

You condone the federal government being given power to determine that for us?

You are not clear about any of this. You consistently assert the false choice that we either believe in natural rights, or "the govt" get to decide what rights we have.

There are more choices than the two you present
 
Sacrifice is always voluntary. Anything else is not sacrifice but theft, coercion, oppression, the strong taking whatever it wants from the weak.

Your citizenship is voluntary, and it comes with obligations which includes things like obeying the law, paying taxes, and not engaging in certain types of speech such as incitement, defamation, libel, etc.
 
If I vote for the tax or agree to the law that imposes it, I am voluntarily sacrificing. Otherwise it is not a sacrifice but an involuntary confiscation of my property.

By accepting citizenship, and enjoying the benefits thereof, you have voluntarily agreed to abide by the laws of the nation, including the laws you don't like.
 
Let's get the discussion started.

29A said:
My ideas are important too.
AGENT J said:
My ideas are important too.
Amandi said:
My ideas are important too.
americanwoman said:
My ideas are important too.
APACHERAT said:
My ideas are important too.
azgreg said:
My ideas are important too.
BrewerBob said:
My ideas are important too.
Buck Ewer said:
My ideas are important too.
Chantal said:
My ideas are important too.
chromium said:
My ideas are important too.
Citizen.Seven said:
My ideas are important too.
CycloneWanderer said:
My ideas are important too.
DaveFagan said:
My ideas are important too.
Declan said:
My ideas are important too.
DifferentDrummr said:
My ideas are important too.
Geoist said:
My ideas are important too.
Grand Mal said:
My ideas are important too.
grip said:
My ideas are important too.
hallam said:
My ideas are important too.
Hamster Buddha said:
My ideas are important too.
Hatuey said:
My ideas are important too.
haymarket said:
My ideas are important too.
iliveonramen said:
My ideas are important too.
imagep said:
My ideas are important too.
Kal'Stang said:
My ideas are important too.
Korimyr the Rat said:
My ideas are important too.
Kushinator said:
My ideas are important too.
Luftwaffe said:
My ideas are important too.
mak2 said:
My ideas are important too.
ModerateGOP said:
My ideas are important too.
Moot said:
My ideas are important too.
Navy Pride said:
My ideas are important too.
NIMBY said:
My ideas are important too.
Ockham said:
My ideas are important too.
Paleocon said:
My ideas are important too.
Poiuy said:
My ideas are important too.
Psychoclown said:
My ideas are important too.
rabbitcaebannog said:
My ideas are important too.
radioman said:
My ideas are important too.
RedAkston said:
My ideas are important too.
rjay said:
My ideas are important too.
roguenuke said:
My ideas are important too.
sookster said:
My ideas are important too.
Superfly said:
My ideas are important too.
TeleKat said:
My ideas are important too.
The Mark said:
My ideas are important too.
TheDemSocialist said:
My ideas are important too.
Threegoofs said:
My ideas are important too.
TurtleDude said:
My ideas are important too.
Unitedwestand13 said:
My ideas are important too.
Unrepresented said:
My ideas are important too.
Visbek said:
My ideas are important too.
whysoserious said:
My ideas are important too.
Wiggen said:
My ideas are important too.
Your Star said:
My ideas are important too.
 
By accepting citizenship, and enjoying the benefits thereof, you have voluntarily agreed to abide by the laws of the nation, including the laws you don't like.

And I have accepted citizenship on the basis that we the people assign the government what authority and powers it will have. When it oversteps that authority, the contract is broken.
 
Proposed: The purpose of the new Constitution should at a minimum secure the unalienable rights of the people and promote maximum individual liberty.

We've become bogged down in the Preamble thread over this single issue. So let's focus on this issue.

Some members reject the concept of God given aka natural aka unalienable rights.

God given aka natural aka unalienable rights,
for this purpose, are defined as human life, breathing, to think, to speak, to worship, to hope, to believe, to aspire, to create, etc., i.e. all those components and activity of humanity that require no involuntary contribution or participation from any other. Such requires only the non interference of others and should be inviolate.

Those members who reject the concept of unalienable rights seem to be unanimous in the concept that all human rights come from the government in place.

And some have rejected my definition of unalienable rights as given above.

Other members believe as strongly in a concept of God given aka natural aka unalienable rights, all seem to agree that the government should secure them and otherwise keep hands off, and most seem to have no problem with my definition as given above.

On the theory that if we cannot come to a consensus or at least compromise on this one issue, any effort to forge a Constitution will be futile, let's deal with it.

Natural rights as defined by the Aristotelian-Thomist philosophical tradition shall be protected by the government.
 
Natural rights as defined by the Aristotelian-Thomist philosophical tradition shall be protected by the government.

And in a sense, that is what I have been arguing. Everybody doesn't like the same kind of environment, lifestyle, aesthetics, etc. In a truly free society, those who want a Mayberry USA can have that. And those who want a anything goes loose and rowdy society can have that. It is only when a government obtains enough power to dictate what sort of society the people are required to have that we have lost all ability to enjoy the blessings of liberty, i.e. our unalienable rights.
 
And I have accepted citizenship on the basis that we the people assign the government what authority and powers it will have. When it oversteps that authority, the contract is broken.

And the govt has the authority and power to pass laws, even laws that you did not vote for, or do not support agree to.

If I vote for the tax or agree to the law that imposes it, I am voluntarily sacrificing. Otherwise it is not a sacrifice but an involuntary confiscation of my property.



In a representative democracy, you don't get to vote for laws; Your representative in the legislature does. When the legislature passes a law, which is a legitimate power it has, your adherence is not involuntary. Your have agreed to adhere to the laws passed by the legislature by accepting your citizenship and enjoying the priviliges, protections and benefits citizenship provides
 
Yer going too fast, I can't keep up. Slow down, please. :)
 
And the govt has the authority and power to pass laws, even laws that you did not vote for, or do not support agree to.





In a representative democracy, you don't get to vote for laws; Your representative in the legislature does. When the legislature passes a law, which is a legitimate power it has, your adherence is not involuntary. Your have agreed to adhere to the laws passed by the legislature by accepting your citizenship and enjoying the priviliges, protections and benefits citizenship provides

Um, Mr. President, have you forgotten that the purpose of this exercise is to write a new constitution? We haven't even decided whether that will result in a democratic democracy or how the laws will be passed or who will pass what laws yet. The purpose of this thread is, in part, to arrive at an agreement of the scope of the federal government that we are writing a constitution for. Could we focus on that please instead of what I am or am not allowed to do or what I accept via my citizenship?

The OP and poll are perfectly good as a framework in which to have s discussion on the issue of unalienable rights aka natural rights aka God given rights. The poll includes an 'other' choice for those who do not accept any of the other four statements.

So how about instead of complaining about the OP, we discuss the concept. Okay?

If we cannot agree on what liberty is, or what liberties we expect the Constitution to recognize and secure, we are dead in the water from the get go.
 
Last edited:
Um, Mr. President, have you forgotten that the purpose of this exercise is to write a new constitution? We haven't even decided whether that will result in a democratic democracy or how the laws will be passed or who will pass what laws yet. The purpose of this thread is, in part, to arrive at an agreement of the scope of the federal government that we are writing a constitution for. Could we focus on that please instead of what I am or am not allowed to do or what I accept via my citizenship?

The OP and poll are perfectly good as a framework in which to have s discussion on the issue of unalienable rights aka natural rights aka God given rights. The poll includes an 'other' choice for those who do not accept any of the other four statements.

So how about instead of complaining about the OP, we discuss the concept. Okay?

If we cannot agree on what liberty is, or what liberties we expect the Constitution to recognize and secure, we are dead in the water from the get go.

First of all, I am speaking as a member of the convention, not as President. My role as president is essentially an administrative one, so responding to my comments about non-administrative matters as if they came from the presidents "office" is inappropriate IMO

Secondly, it is my opinion that the membership will make this govt to be a representative democracy (of some kind) is a foregone conclusion, and if your argument depends on the membership doing otherwise, then you have lost the debate before it has begun

And as far as your OP goes, I have already pointed out that your formulation (ie "unalienable rights aka natural rights aka God given rights") is faulty. Those three are not all the same thing; They are three different things.
 
First of all, I am speaking as a member of the convention, not as President. My role as president is essentially an administrative one, so responding to my comments about non-administrative matters as if they came from the presidents "office" is inappropriate IMO

Secondly, it is my opinion that the membership will make this govt to be a representative democracy (of some kind) is a foregone conclusion, and if your argument depends on the membership doing otherwise, then you have lost the debate before it has begun

And as far as your OP goes, I have already pointed out that your formulation (ie "unalienable rights aka natural rights aka God given rights") is faulty. Those three are not all the same thing; They are three different things.

They are one and the same and I have defined them.

Please provide your definition.
 
They are one and the same and I have defined them.

Please provide your definition.

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).
 
Back
Top Bottom