• 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.

Natural Rights versus Manmade Rights

What laws or statutues are based on the DoI?

enabling laws....... the federal government recognizes the principles of the DOI, and 1 of those principles is natural law.

the DOI is part of the u.s. statutes at large, it is non -positive law


Freedom is a natural right and yet the government has authority to take someone's freedom away if they break the law or violate the rights of others.

first in original constitutional law, the federal government has no authority into the personal life's liberty and property of the people.

the only time the federal government can be involved with a citizen is, if he commits treason, counterfeiting, and piracy.

but the federal courts have no judicial authority over natural rights of the people as a whole is what is meant, we know a single person could who has broken law, can have his liberty curtailed, by a court.

The people gave up certain natural rights in order to form a government to secure all their other natural rights. What natural rights did the people give up?

since you are asking a question of me, i can only believe you know ,can you share them with us.
 
Last edited:
The observance of rights to life, expression and self is universally agreed upon, given the exclusion of tyranny and the insane.

Our disagreement:

You derive the natural right to arms from the supposed natural right to property.

I derive the natural right to arms from the unquestionably natural right to self defense.

To have the natural right to self defense, you must first have the natural right to self (property).
 
Where did this natural law come from? Did it come from Aslan the lion in the Chronicles of Narnia?

The need for the self preservation of our species. They are naturally occurring agreements.
 
To have the natural right to self defense, you must first have the natural right to self (property).

I disagree. To exercise the natural right to self defense, one must first have the means. In a purely technical sense, for the sake of argument, I could have a gun I do not own and would nonetheless have been empowered to exercise my right to self defense.

That the gun can be my property is a matter of human, civil and/or labor rights. That I have access to a gun for my protection is a natural right.
 
It is so in nature, therefore it exists.

If it is so in nature then that does not mean we want it in human society. We are not animals. There are no rights in nature, only self-preservation.

One has the right to live free to pursue happiness under your own terms and not under slavery to others. That is a natural right.

That is just secular dogma. Why do people have this right?

Some say society gives us these rights, or that God gives us these rights. I disagree with that.

I also disagree.

Something that is given can be taken away from you by the same person(s) that gave it to you. That is why Natural rights are inalienable - they cannot be separated (alienated) from the person because they are a natural part of the person, and cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws.

How do you know they even exist. How do you know they are any more real than the Midi-chlorian we hear about in the Star Wars prequels that are responsible for the force?
 
Locke's understanding of natural law was DOA, because it was not based on the reality of human nature, but on a phantasy world of his own creation.

While perhaps not inherently problematic, I find rights language unnecessarily burdensome when discussing natural law.


Actually, natural rights are based on human nature. Human's naturally think, feel and act in their own best interests independently of the influence of culture.
 
The need for the self preservation of our species. They are naturally occurring agreements.

So why make up rights? Why not just admit that this is all about self-preservation, and only helping others when they can benefit your own self-preservation. If I was sentenced to death for a crime then I should try as hard as I can to escape no matter who I kill to do so.
 
since you are asking a question of me, i can only believe you know ,can you share them with us.

Please keep my quotes separate from your response and forgo the red letters.
 
Actually, natural rights are based on human nature. Human's naturally think, feel and act in their own best interests independently of the influence of culture.

very good!,

Human's naturally think, feel and act in their own best interests because it part the nature of man, however humans can form collectives and act in the interest of there own collective group [faction] which is very dangerous

which is why the founders created the "mixed government" i spoke to you about.
 
the constitution mentions natural rights twice.......life liberty and property

Actually, the constitution says...life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
 
So why make up rights? Why not just admit that this is all about self-preservation, and only helping others when they can benefit your own self-preservation.

It's not about helping anyone (though one can help others if one wishes, of course). It's about universal agreements that arise from self preservation and are thus socially natural. We can call them natural rights or natural social agreements, but the former is less letters.

If I was sentenced to death for a crime then I should try as hard as I can to escape no matter who I kill to do so.

If you were sentenced to death for a crime, you probably already believed that unjustly killing others was a reasonable course of action.

The right to life is the right to a choice, not a mandate to live. One could argue that a death row inmate made their choice.
 
very good!,

Human's naturally think, feel and act in their own best interests because it part the nature of man, however humans can form collectives and act in the interest of there own collective group [faction] which is very dangerous

which is why the founders created the "mixed government" i spoke to you about.


Collectives/mixed government are a group right...not an individual right. The DoI declares a group right, not an individual right. The constitution secures the collective right of the people to exercise their individual natural right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
 
Collectives/mixed government are a group right...not an individual right. The DoI declares a group right, not an individual right. The constitution protects the collective right of the people to exercise their individual natural right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

mixed government is not a right, its a true republic of the founders of divided powers because of its structure. the people- the states- and the union, each hold power.

rights are not collective, because the people do not get together and decide what rights the people of the group will have.
 
thats the DOI you are talking about

read the 5th and 14th amendments

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.





AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
mixed government is not a right, its a true republic of the founders of divided powers because of its structure. the people- the states- and the union, each hold power.

rights are not collective, because the people do not get together and decide what rights the people of the group will have.

The people in their collective capacity created the Constitution. Obviously, they believed they had that collective right when they declared their independence from the monarch.
 
The people in their collective capacity created the Constitution. Obviously, they believed they had that collective right when they declared their independence from the monarch.


wrong, delegates from state legislatures went to a convention to fix the articles on confederation, but a constitution was written and when it was presented the the states they objective to it at first, state conventions were held to vote on its ratification.

many of the state legislatures when they saw it said...."why does it say we the people, it should say we the states", because the people didnt give up anything to the new federal government but the states did, they gave some of their own powers to the federal government.

the federal government was set up to be a mixed government of divided powers, between the people the states and the union as a whole, it was formed that way to PREVENT the people in their collective capacity from creating federal laws, because collectives are factions
 
Locke is not the primary subject of this thread, and I used him and his theory as an example only. Rights (specifically Natural Rights) are inseparable from Natural Law, unless one limits Natural Law to that of a theistic nature rather than a holistic in human nature.

As I said, while natural law confers certain "rights" (e.g. the right not to be killed by one's mother), it's easier to think clearly about natural law in terms of duties.

And, there it is... heresy. Natural Law is not God's Law, nor is God's Law that which is considered Natural Law, outside of a theistic realm. Theists conflate one with the other. This thread is not a religious thread, but rather a thread where we discuss Natural Law as it pertains to human nature.

God is the author of human nature, even though you reject him.
 
Go anywhere in the world, at any time in history, and you will find people (in the absence of tyranny or insanity) making the same agreements: to respect each other's rights to life, expression and self defense.

Note: we must exclude tyranny on the grounds that inalienable does not mean inviolable, and we must exclude the insane on the grounds that this is a sociological concept.

As a result of the need for self preservation.

The idea is that these rights emerge as universal agreements in human society as a result of the need for self preservation of our species. When the founders wrote "endowed by their Creator" the point was not to qualify their existence on that of a deity but to qualify their existence on mankind.

As rights are a social construct, they can only be understood through a sociological perspective. The concept of rights to an individual in isolation, acting according only to their own whim, is meaningless.

Those are agreements are not universal over the past. For example, certain ancient Mesopotamian societies. In those, certain children who were born under certain conditions were destined to be sacrificed. There was no universal right to life, and if you were to ask anyone in that society whether there was a universal right to life they would say no. Because the sacrifice of those specific children was key to the continuation of their civilization. This was seen as an honour for the children being sacrificed, as they would go on to join the gods in the afterlife. You may say that we can dismiss this as insane, but insanity is completely subjective, and based upon our own (i.e. the 21st century wests) sociological lens. As you say, it's a sociological concept, and that means that it can't transcend society.

Perhaps more importantly, there is no guarantee that these rights will continue to be universal in the future. In 500 years, should we replace biological bodies with easily replaceable robotic ones, rights to self defense might become obsolete as we can simply manufacture more body parts. The 'universally agreed upon' rights you mention may arise out of human nature but human nature has changed in the past and will continue to change in the future.

The right to bear arms is the only way to realize the right to self defense for the masses. In this, it becomes a natural right. I derive the natural right to arms from self defense, not property.

Disagree. In a society without guns, then bearing one is not the only way to be able to defend oneself. Likewise, in a society with magic wands, bearing a gun is not the only way to realize the right of self defense. The ability to bear arms is but one possible way to ensure the right to self preservation. That does not mean that you can equate the two.

rights are not collective, because the people do not get together and decide what rights the people of the group will have.

Just because people don't get together and decide doesn't mean that rights are not collective.

Rights are contingent on interactions between multiple parties, and it is in how those parties interact that the framework of rights is built. You can't have rights without those interactions.

Those interactions may arise from human nature itself (human tendencies to form groups, to bond, to protect each other etc) rather than being specifically decided upon, but they are still collective.

God is the author of human nature, even though you reject him.

Baseless. Anthropologists can demonstrate how the author of human nature is evolution and genetics. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
 
Last edited:
Those are agreements are not universal over the past. For example, certain ancient Mesopotamian societies. In those, certain children who were born under certain conditions were destined to be sacrificed. There was no universal right to life, and if you were to ask anyone in that society whether there was a universal right to life they would say no. Because the sacrifice of those specific children was key to the continuation of their civilization. This was seen as an honour for the children being sacrificed, as they would go on to join the gods in the afterlife. You may say that we can dismiss this as insane, but insanity is completely subjective, and based upon our own (i.e. the 21st century wests) sociological lens. As you say, it's a sociological concept, and that means that it can't transcend society.

You're confusing inalienable with inviolable. The children in question had their rights violated. That does not mean we are incapable of recognizing that they had a right to life which was violated. Tyranny does not invalidate natural social agreements.

Of course rights come from society. The idea that they come from above us, through nature or a creator, is just a means of saying they're natural - socially natural.

Perhaps more importantly, there is no guarantee that these rights will continue to be universal in the future. In 500 years, should we replace biological bodies with easily replaceable robotic ones, rights to self defense might become obsolete as we can simply manufacture more body parts. The 'universally agreed upon' rights you mention may arise out of human nature but human nature has changed in the past and will continue to change in the future.

The ability to create robots to house our consciousness in no way deters from our right to self defense. In such a case, the right would manifest itself in the preservation of that consciousness if not that body.


Disagree. In a society without guns, then bearing one is not the only way to be able to defend oneself. Likewise, in a society with magic wands, bearing a gun is not the only way to realize the right of self defense. The ability to bear arms is but one possible way to ensure the right to self preservation. That does not mean that you can equate the two.

A gun is the only way to insure a random person can defend themselves from another random person. The right to arms is the only way a society can ensure its citizens are capable of exercising their right to self defense.
 
Back
Top Bottom