• 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.

Are rights granted or innate?

Look, dude:

You just don't grasp the concept. You have misconceptions that you are not willing to let go because it's so important for you to believe you're extra special and smarter than others. The Enlightenment, the US Constitution and the Western World as we know it today are not frauds. All of these things are based on an understanding of the concept of socially natural rights.

You're not smarter than Enlightenment philosophers, you're not smarter than the Founders. A concept that fundamentally dismantles government authority is not, via conspiracy, a tool to enslave the people. You just don't understand the concept.
 
ecofarm said:
You're not smarter than Enlightenment philosophers, you're not smarter than the Founders. A concept that fundamentally dismantles government authority is not, via conspiracy, a tool to enslave the people. You just don't understand the concept.
Click to expand...

Enlightenment philosophers reframed government authority, but they did not dismantle it.
 
ecofarm said:
Yeah, ok. The Enlightenment and every Western constitution in the world is BS. It's all just a scam. Forget the fact that the concept dismantles government authority and keep pretending it's just a trick to get government power.

Idiocy.


Sometimes I think people this blind and stubborn deserve to live under theocracy. Why should they benefit from the understandings of The Enlightenment. Let them live in a world where all rights come from government, they can't grasp the concept of socially natural rights anyway. To Iran with them.
Click to expand...
Nice dodging.
You are keep trying to move the discussion to the Enlightenment time, so can you tell me who is the philosopher you are talking about? Did he use your scientific poll in order to decide what are the natural rights?
 
NO1 said:
Nice dodging.
Click to expand...

Nice ignorance parading as smarter than Enlightenment philosophers and the Founders. Sure, substitute your own personal crap for generations of sociological understanding.

You are keep trying to move the discussion to the Enlightenment time, so can you tell me who is the philosopher you are talking about?
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Did he use your scientific poll in order to decide what are the natural rights?
Click to expand...

As the Founders noted, the concept is self evident. I've merely explained to you how to acquire that (empirical) evidence yourself.


But hey, if you want to believe the US Constitution is a fraud, go ahead. I'm sure everyone will find you so smart and insightful that believing you, instead of the Founders, will come naturally. You're so special, you can't be fooled by stupid things like the US Constitution. The foundation of Western law is a farce, a fake! And you were intellectual enough to expose the Western world as a fraud. Congratz!

What a dreamland you must live in to fancy yourself so exceptional.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Nice ignorance parading as smarter than Enlightenment philosophers and the Founders. Sure, substitute your own personal crap for generations of sociological understanding.
Click to expand...
I didnt say anything like that.
Just because I find holes in yours theory doesnt mean I think I smarter than your founders or something like that.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
Click to expand...
No, you didnt answer my question.



As the Founders noted, the concept is self evident. I've merely explained to you how to acquire that (empirical) evidence yourself.


But hey, if you want to believe the US Constitution is a fraud, go ahead. I'm sure everyone will find you so smart and insightful that believing you, instead of the Founders, will come naturally.
Click to expand...
Again I didnt even adress US constitution, I didnt even read it. Can't you defend your theory without sending me to yours founders?
 
NO1 said:
I didnt say anything like that.
Just because I find holes in yours theory doesnt mean I think I smarter than your founders or something like that.
Click to expand...

You haven't found any holes. Are you delusional?

No, you didnt answer my question.
Click to expand...

I gave you a list of contributing philosophers.

Again I didnt even adress US constitution, I didnt even read it. Can't you defend your theory without sending me to yours founders?
Click to expand...

The Age of Enlightenment, The French Revolution, the American Revolution, the US Constitution, every Western world constitution and the Western world as we know it today is all based on the concept of socially natural rights. Socially natural rights are what ended monarchy and theocracy in the West; they are what defines tyranny today. To deny socially natural rights is to deny the existence of tyranny, for if all rights come from governments then no right can be violated.

But no... you know better. You've debunked all that as trickery!

The arrogance of ignorance. I'm debating with a child, aren't I. You don't know a damn ****ing thing about any of this, do you?

What a waste of my time and teaching.

Good day.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
You haven't found any holes. Are you delusional?
Click to expand...
Yes I did.



I gave you a list of contributing philosophers.
Click to expand...
Ok, can you tell me which one is saying what you are stating?



The Age of Enlightenment, The French Revolution, the American Revolution, the US Constitution, every Western world constitution and the Western world as we know it today is all based on the concept of socially natural rights. Socially natural rights are what ended monarchy and theocracy in the West; they are what defines tyranny today. To deny socially natural rights is to deny the existence of tyranny, for if all rights come from governments then no right can be violated.

But no... you know better. You've debunked all that as trickery!

The arrogance of ignorance. I'm debating with a child, aren't I. You don't know a damn ****ing thing about any of this, do you?

What a waste of my time and teaching.

Good day.
Click to expand...
Ok, you are the smart one. Now me and Glen Contrarian pointed out the contradiction in your words but you keep saying that the founders are smart than everybody etc, instead of defending your own words, and when I really want to understand and I asked you about a philosopher that you learned from him your theory, you dont even answer and give me a list of people who says different things.
 
ecofarm said:
The Age of Enlightenment, The French Revolution, the American Revolution, the US Constitution, every Western world constitution and the Western world as we know it today is all based on the concept of socially natural rights. Socially natural rights are what ended monarchy and theocracy in the West; they are what defines tyranny today. To deny socially natural rights is to deny the existence of tyranny, for if all rights come from governments then no right can be violated.
Click to expand...

This argument doesn't strike me as being any different than that of those pushing back on you. What you're essentially saying here is that the social significance of the idea is tantamount to its validity.

What folks on the "other side" of the question from you do is just state the contrapositive of your own point: If society doesn't internalize this concept (and codify it), then it's immaterial.

Natural rights "exist" because we collectively act like we believe they do. Some take that obvious observation to be some gateway to metaphysical truth, to others the key point is that action and behavior (including at the level of entire societies and governments) is the determinative factor here. But I'm not seeing a particular huge gulf between these positions.
 
NO1 said:
How can you born with rights? rights are not matter, they are ideas
Click to expand...

OK, fine. You are born with a blank slate brain, devoid of ideas but the ideas are of your own creation as you experience life. Like you said, rights are ideas. No government controls ideas. Ergo, rights are not from government-they are from your thoughts.
 
I think what we're getting from this thread is that human rights are pretty universally desired by humans, but without the protection of those rights (by gov't or other groups), "having" those rights is moot. Without the protection to exercise those rights, you effectively do not have those rights.
 
Critter7r said:
I think what we're getting from this thread is that human rights are pretty universally desired by humans, but without the protection of those rights (by gov't or other groups), "having" those rights is moot. Without the protection to exercise those rights, you effectively do not have those rights.
Click to expand...

One might also say rights as a concept exist to legitimate (and often spur) government action.

What one identifies as a "right" tends to scale with his conception of what government ought to do and what its role ought to be. Hit a critical mass and get that philosophy turned into policy and you've proven your own point!
 
Eric7216 said:
OK, fine. You are born with a blank slate brain, devoid of ideas but the ideas are of your own creation as you experience life. Like you said, rights are ideas. No government controls ideas. Ergo, rights are not from government-they are from your thoughts.
Click to expand...
What I said is that in order to have a right, you have to be in a group of people or government that recogize this right. How can right exist without anyone that recogize it?
 
NO1 said:
What I said is that in order to have a right, you have to be in a group of people or government that recogize this right. How can right exist without anyone that recogize it?
Click to expand...
Well of course it all depends on what the definition of rights is. As long as I have freedom of thoughts, I have rights to hold any view or belief. I have a right to have my attitude. All other rights are insignificant compared to that.

Stoicism holds that even slaves controlled themselves as they controlled their thoughts. Victor Frankl may have been in a concentration camp but he was free.
Epictitus:
"Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of men's desires, but by the removal of desire."
"Man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them."

It is important not to get overly concerned about those silly little "rights" given by consensus of society, or by "government". When that happens, you have lost your freedom.
 
Eric7216 said:
Well of course it all depends on what the definition of rights is. As long as I have freedom of thoughts, I have rights to hold any view or belief. I have a right to have my attitude. All other rights are insignificant compared to that.

Stoicism holds that even slaves controlled themselves as they controlled their thoughts. Victor Frankl may have been in a concentration camp but he was free.
Epictitus:
"Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of men's desires, but by the removal of desire."
"Man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them."

It is important not to get overly concerned about those silly little "rights" given by consensus of society, or by "government". When that happens, you have lost your freedom.
Click to expand...
I'll start from the end, you are trying to detach rights from the social context and I find it wrong because what the importance of rights without any social context.

Of course rights came from the human mind but the fact that I can think of rights doesn't mean I have these rights, same for Frankl. How exactly he was free in concentration camp, Where all his actions determined by the Nazis? And yea the Nazis couldn't control his mind and thoughts, so in his mind he was free but still in the reality he was in a concentration camp without any right to freedom. The thought about a right doesn't give me the right, how can right exist without anyone that recogize it? How Frankl's right to freedom existed in the concentration camp?
 
Greenbeard said:
This argument doesn't strike me as being any different than that of those pushing back on you. What you're essentially saying here is that the social significance of the idea is tantamount to its validity.

What folks on the "other side" of the question from you do is just state the contrapositive of your own point: If society doesn't internalize this concept (and codify it), then it's immaterial.

Natural rights "exist" because we collectively act like we believe they do. Some take that obvious observation to be some gateway to metaphysical truth, to others the key point is that action and behavior (including at the level of entire societies and governments) is the determinative factor here. But I'm not seeing a particular huge gulf between these positions.
Click to expand...

You're failing to see the bigger picture. We, as humans of equal legal power, invariably agree to rights of life, expression and self defense. We do this as a matter of species preservation. This universal agreement among the non-insane (sociological) and non-tyrannical (equal legal power) establishes these rights as SOCIALLY natural. And no government can change that.

If someone rejects this basis of the Enlightenment, they have no basis upon which to claim any state action is tyranny. To deny the existence of socially natural rights is to deny the existence of tyranny. This is precisely why fascists and theocrats are determined to deny the existence of socially natural rights.

You need to understand that what we, as humans, agree on throughout time and place trumps what any government claims.

Thus, socially natural rights are self evident (ask yourself and everyone you know) and inalienable (a part of human society).

It DOES NOT MATTER if a government refuses to recognize and violates these rights. It DOES NOT MATTER if an individual refuses to recognize and violates others' rights. What matters is that these rights are innate to human society and no government or individual can change that.
 
Last edited:
Critter7r said:
I think what we're getting from this thread is that human rights are pretty universally desired by humans, but without the protection of those rights (by gov't or other groups), "having" those rights is moot. Without the protection to exercise those rights, you effectively do not have those rights.
Click to expand...

Socially natural rights (life, expression and self defense) are a sociological fact and they are inalienable from human society. That they are violated does not change this. Even if someone violates your socially natural rights, be that someone a government or individual, you still have those rights. If you didn't have those rights, it wouldn't be tyranny.

INALIENABLE =/= INVIOLABLE
 
You're dead right. Or, you would be if you expressed some of those rights in the wrong place.

Is it really a right of you are killed for exercising it?

We're arguing a difference without a distinction.

I'm not saying those rights don't exist, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around exercising a right that gets you killed, and calling it a right.
 
Critter7r said:
In another thread, a tangent developed in which I advanced the idea that governments grant rights to their citizens by way of protecting those rights. Without governments to protect rights, one is unable to exercise rights. Without the ability to exercise their rights, the citizenry effectively doesn't have those rights. Ergo, governments grant rights.

:::donning flamesuit:::

The tangential posts were a distraction to the original thread, so let's continue this here ... instead of having it in the Wealth Distribution thread ...
Click to expand...

Well, "government grants rights" is largely indistinguishable from "people agree to recognize rights", if you think - and I think you should - that some sort of social contract underlies a representative Democracy.

One thing that gets me about "rights" talk is that there are people who, whether due to religion or not, assert that there are natural rights which are real and more important than constitutional/government-granted/social contract rights.


But there's a little problem with that. All things that are objectively real are the physical laws governing objective reality or subject to those laws; matter, energy, resulting gravity, etc. That describes the set of things that are "objectively real." "Natural rights" aren't part of that set.

Nor would it make any sense to suppose that "rights" came into existence following the big bang along with matter, energy, and the laws of physics......

...and just sort of floated around waiting for humans to evolve on one specific miserably tiny dot in an unfathomably large universe.



It seems to me that the best way to describe a right is a thing that a certain number of people agree should be treated as if it were objectively real, with the knowledge that it isn't. We say "right to life", but that's just because virtually all of us can agree that we'd rather not be killed and therefore would like to live in a world where killing people is generally wrong. But you can't build a machine to detect life rights floating around. You can't describe it with a physical law or a mathematical equation. And you most certainly cannot get a lion to recognize your right to life ...just try.
 
Greenbeard said:
If society doesn't internalize this concept (and codify it), then it's immaterial.
Click to expand...

Which is clearly false. Trivially its material.

The fact that you cannot enjoy a good cigar in your lounge chair, if I kill you first, does not depend on society to internalize this concept. It's a fact the existence of life and how we "are alive as a consciousness, part of a biological organism we call humans, etc.".

Similarly, if you find yourself in a community where you need to live, how are you going to discuss the fact above and "internalize it", if you are killed when you speak of it (free speech). You cannot. Clearly being able to discuss rights has some sort of axiomatic primacy when it comes to establish any rights at all.

Can we discuss rights? No, we actually shoot anyone that mentions them. Well awww jeeez, that makes free speech immaterial doesn't it? What sort of hillbilly philosophy would that be? Not everyone was enlightened by the enlightenment, I do understand that...

These are some examples of how certain aspects of your conscious existence REQUIRE acceptance of certain facts of reality, if you are going to discuss any rights at all. Yes of course you can live your whole life and never think of any of this. That's just ignorance though, which is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom