• 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!

Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

Do You Believe in Natural Rights?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 41.4%
  • No

    Votes: 51 58.6%

  • Total voters
    87
You can support establishing and extending civil rights without attributing them magical powers and origins. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, but you're still claiming that rights are only what a dictator gives you, which means you're entitled to nothing, including your natural rights. I can't buy into that premise, magical powers or not.
 
Yeah, but you're still claiming that rights are only what a dictator gives you, which means you're entitled to nothing. I can't buy into that premise, magical powers or not.

Exactly. If rights are a product of the state, then rights cease to be a moral concept; they are simply the product of power and force. Might does not make right. What people who mock the concept of innate rights are actually doing is making the argument that what people like ISIS do, or the Taliban does is not immoral. Throwing a gay man from a tall building is not a rights violation, its just something we don't like. Its not a moral crime since the gay man possessed no more rights than a mosquito. In some societies, women are forbidden to be educated, drive a car, vote or show their faces in public. If they have no innate rights, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with this sort of thing. The people rotting in North Korean prisons have no innate right to liberty so their enslavement and captivity is no moral crime at all. THAT is the dilemma that rights deniers wont confront.
 
It does matter, unless you think reason doesn't matter, that human life doesn't matter--that nothing matters.

WOW!!!! You just attempted to jump the Grand Canyon with a pogo stick!!!!
 
Last edited:
Exactly. If rights are a product of the state, then rights cease to be a moral concept; they are simply the product of power and force. Might does not make right. What people who mock the concept of innate rights are actually doing is making the argument that what people like ISIS do, or the Taliban does is not immoral. Throwing a gay man from a tall building is not a rights violation, its just something we don't like. Its not a moral crime since the gay man possessed no more rights than a mosquito. In some societies, women are forbidden to be educated, drive a car, vote or show their faces in public. If they have no innate rights, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with this sort of thing. The people rotting in North Korean prisons have no innate right to liberty so their enslavement and captivity is no moral crime at all. THAT is the dilemma that rights deniers wont confront.

Tremendous!!!! people who do not believe in the concept of natural rights have no morals..... only believe in force .... believe that might makes right..... are akin to ISIS or the Taliban ... would throw gays off of buildings .... look at people like insects ..... would relegate women to status just love animals .... and share the tactics of North Korea.

Amazing!!!! Truly awe inspiring amazing!!!!! :doh:roll::shock:
 
Tremendous!!!! people who do not believe in the concept of natural rights have no morals..... only believe in force .... believe that might makes right..... are akin to ISIS or the Taliban ... would throw gays off of buildings .... look at people like insects ..... would relegate women to status just love animals .... and share the tactics of North Korea.

Amazing!!!! Truly awe inspiring amazing!!!!! :doh:roll::shock:

You missed my point entirely didn't you. Lets try it this way: explain to me why it is immoral for ISIS to toss gays to their deaths from tall buildings.
 
We did and do just that in the establishment, enforcement, and even change of our Constitution and laws.

no you didnt, you do not address the idea of you concpet in american laws,

your concept defies all american laws, organic, constitutional, federal.

now.....show me where in the laws of america where your concepts are, because you just saying it does not make it fact.
 
people who do not believe in the concept of natural rights... would throw gays off of buildings....

If a society decides it's okay to throw gays off of buildings what moral authority is there to tell them they shouldn't? You? The Iranian Railroad for Queer Refugees? Why should anyone listen to you... or them? :confused:
 
Is that a universal or conditional statement? If it's conditional, under that conditions, do you think, would general mayhem increase productivity and desirable resources?
Organization is more efficient than disorganization. General mayhem is disorganization.
 
Yeah, but you're still claiming that rights are only what a dictator gives you, which means you're entitled to nothing, including your natural rights. I can't buy into that premise, magical powers or not.
A dictator only has the rights of those who support him, either directly or tacitly. One man cannot rule millions without their consent.
 
You missed my point entirely didn't you. Lets try it this way: explain to me why it is immoral for ISIS to toss gays to their deaths from tall buildings.

No - your "point' came across crystal clear.
 
If a society decides it's okay to throw gays off of buildings what moral authority is there to tell them they shouldn't? You? The Iranian Railroad for Queer Refugees? Why should anyone listen to you... or them? :confused:

Written law is an expression of what a society feels is necessary for that society to conduct business in relative order and peace. That is the authority society puts forth. I have no quarrel that some of it may indeed be influenced by concepts of ones personal judgement while other parts of law are simply rules that we want people to follow because its easer for almost everyone if we do it that way.

Having a law to prevent murder is perfectly possible in a world where the concept of natural rights fails to exist. All people have to do is feel that they do not want people killing others and thus we need a law to prevent that.
 
A dictator only has the rights of those who support him, either directly or tacitly. One man cannot rule millions without their consent.

That doesn't make any sense. Dictators rule without the consent of the governed. Thats what makes them dictators. They come to power by force and remain in power by force. Not consent.
 
see my post 787 where it covers your question about throwing gays off buildings.

It doesn't answer the question at all. Here it is again: explain to me why it is immoral for ISIS to toss gays to their deaths from tall buildings?
 
It doesn't answer the question at all. Here it is again: explain to me why it is immoral for ISIS to toss gays to their deaths from tall buildings?

In a society of people we do not want other people thrown off of buildings because it might hurt them and others. In and of itself - that is enough.
 
So if any action you can perform is a right then is it a natural right to operate a car?

Why are some natural rights codified but others not?

I never said any action you can perform is a right. The government claims to property are suspect because they acquired the property through conquest which involves theft, mass murder and enslavement. The only two justified ways to acquire property are either through homesteading or through trade, and so, the governments actions were by all accounts of no justifiable merit.

Anyway, you have the right to use your property and since a car is property you have the right to then use it. The question is only where can use it without the permission of someone else.
 
In a society of people we do not want other people thrown off of buildings because it might hurt them and others. In and of itself - that is enough.

I get that we don't do that sort of thing here, but that is because we have laws based upon the concept of innate, individual rights. The problem is, the governing authority in Mosul Iraq has declared that throwing gays from tall buildings is a just and proper act. Why are they wrong? Or aren't they?
 
A dictator only has the rights of those who support him, either directly or tacitly. One man cannot rule millions without their consent.

Of course he can. All he has to do is make it seem like no one stands a chance against him.
 
Exactly. If rights are a product of the state, then rights cease to be a moral concept; they are simply the product of power and force. Might does not make right. What people who mock the concept of innate rights are actually doing is making the argument that what people like ISIS do, or the Taliban does is not immoral. Throwing a gay man from a tall building is not a rights violation, its just something we don't like. Its not a moral crime since the gay man possessed no more rights than a mosquito. In some societies, women are forbidden to be educated, drive a car, vote or show their faces in public. If they have no innate rights, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with this sort of thing. The people rotting in North Korean prisons have no innate right to liberty so their enslavement and captivity is no moral crime at all. THAT is the dilemma that rights deniers wont confront.

That's exactly right. Rights are subjective or relative, but not in themselves a moral concept. They are a societal concept, things people can do without either facing government action that violates those rights or at least being able to have justice sought for you or by you for a violation of those rights. And this all relies on power and a societal agreement to these things.
 
no you didnt, you do not address the idea of you concpet in american laws,

your concept defies all american laws, organic, constitutional, federal.

now.....show me where in the laws of america where your concepts are, because you just saying it does not make it fact.

We can amend the Constitution to completely remove any and all rights that are guaranteed within it. There is nothing preventing that except for the power of the people who would defy such an action (because at least in the foreseeable future those concepts of rights are pretty strongly held by most Americans).
 
That's exactly right. Rights are subjective or relative, but not in themselves a moral concept. They are a societal concept, things people can do without either facing government action that violates those rights or at least being able to have justice sought for you or by you for a violation of those rights. And this all relies on power and a societal agreement to these things.

Rights are a moral concept though. In fact, it is in the very name: rights, as in right and wrong. Specific rights such as life and liberty are answers to the question 'what is right for man to live as man?'
 
You missed my point entirely didn't you. Lets try it this way: explain to me why it is immoral for ISIS to toss gays to their deaths from tall buildings.

Morality is subjective. It is immoral in my eyes and many others because that is how most of us view it. To them, their actions are probably not immoral. Just like some may see it as immoral to kill someone for any reason, including self defense while others view it as morally ok to kill someone for trying to steal their property (no matter the circumstances) or taking their daughter's virginity, even if the act is two consenting adults, without the fathers permission.
 
We can amend the Constitution to completely remove any and all rights that are guaranteed within it. There is nothing preventing that except for the power of the people who would defy such an action (because at least in the foreseeable future those concepts of rights are pretty strongly held by most Americans).

WRONG!

the bill of rights do not grants any right at all...and since no rights are granted by the bill of rights, you cannot repeal such.

the bill of rights are ONLY declaratory and restrictive clauses placed on the federal government.

james Madison is the author of the bill of rights.

HERE is the preamble to the bill of rights.

The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [FEDERAL] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.



the father of the constitution and author of the bill of rights.....speaking about the bill of rights, stating they are declaratory and restrictive clauses ONLY!

James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions

Jan. 1800Writings 6:385--401

but the evidence is still stronger. The proposition of amendments made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."

Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.



http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs24.html

rights which are not granted by law, cannot be taken away by law, and the bill of rights grants no rights at all!

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments:
Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws;
Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."---John Adams
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom