• 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
the constitution embodies the principles of the DOI.

the principles of the DOI are recognized by u.s. federal law, via enabling laws.
You are correct, and, that doesn't matter.

Things can always be changed. You have no right which is impervious to infringement. To keep what you have you must first apreciate that it can be taken away, and then understand that only constant vigilance can defend it. You can never let your guard down, you can never take it for granted, you can never think it will always be there. Your rights will always be under attack and you must defeat those attacks or lose your rights.

The fight doesn't go away just because the Constitution says suchandsuch. The very real threat to your rights isn't blocked just because a court says thisorthat.

I see your mindset allover gun forums "they can't ban guns because...... " YES THEY CAN and yes they WILL if you aren't actively combating them. Free speech is no diferent. Free religious practice is no diferent.
 
Last edited:
You are correct, and, that doesn't matter.

Things can always be changed. You have no right which is impervious to infringement. To keep what you have you must first apreciate that it can be taken away, and then understand that only constant vigilance can defend it. You can never let your guard down, you can never take it for granted, you never think it will always be there. Your rights will always be under attack and must defeat those attacks or lose your rights.

jerry, it is impossible to stop murder, robbery, acts of infringement on the rights of other people.....i am sure you know the founders know this too.

to secure does not mean....to prevent/stop infringements, again there is not way stop such an act.

alienable means rights are not granted by man, they come from a higher power then man, and since they are not in the hands of man to grant, man [government] has no authority to take them away from "the people"

now if an individual or say a group of people commit act act against another, then via due process they can lose the life, liberty, or property, ...but because of their actions, but do the people at large lose their rights.......no!

unalienable rights of the people as a whole are not subject to the laws of man, which is what makes them unalienable.
 
jerry, it is impossible to stop murder, robbery, acts of infringement on the rights of other people.....i am sure you know the founders know this too.

to secure does not mean....to prevent/stop infringements, again there is not way stop such an act.

alienable means rights are not granted by man, they come from a higher power then man, and since they are not in the hands of man to grant, man [government] has no authority to take them away from "the people"

now if an individual or say a group of people commit act act against another, then via due process they can lose the life, liberty, or property, ...but because of their actions, but do the people at large lose their rights.......no!

unalienable rights of the people as a whole are not subject to the laws of man, which is what makes them unalienable.
That's not what inalienable means. Please consult a dictionary before posting further.
 
That's not what inalienable means. Please consult a dictionary before posting further.

jerry....i am talking unalienable from DOI, not via the dictionary.

because the DOI is taking about men are endowed with unalienable rights......since they are endowed and not granted by man, man has no authority over Rights of Men...which is why rights are unwritten law, if they were written law man could change them anytime he wished to.

you are delving into "if rights are unalienable, how can you have rights alienated from you?"

since rights are endowed to you by a higher power, when you use your life liberty and property to violate the rights of another, you have violated a covenant with the higher power, and your rights of life liberty and property, can be determined what is to be done with those rights via law.
 
Last edited:
jerry....i am talking unalienable from DOI, not via the dictionary.

because the DOI is taking about men are endowed with unalienable rights......since they are endowed and not granted by man, man has no authority over Rights of Men...which is why rights are unwritten law, if they were written law man could change them anytime he wished to.

you are delving into "if rights are unalienable, how can you have rights alienated from you?"

since rights are endowed to you by a higher power, when you use your life liberty and property to violate the rights of another, you have violated a covenant with the higher power, and your rights of life liberty and property, can be determined what is to be done with those rights via law.
There are no inalienable rights. We can prove this over and over; one of the rare occasions we actually can prove a negative. Inalienable means it cannot be taken from you or given up by you. Name any right at all and we can test it here and now.

It is impossible, literaly impossible to infringe upon an inalienable right. You're double-speaking a lover the place. An inalienable right is impervious to being taken away, that's what the word "inalienable" means.

That the DOI says there are inalienable rights only makes the DOI wrong.
 
Last edited:
There are no inalienable rights. We can prove this over and over; one of the rare occasions we actually can prove a negative. That the DOI says there are inalienable rights only makes the DOI wrong.

fine..... then you show me in america, in american law how you make your case.. ...just saying things does not do it for you.

by the way.. the DOI says unalienable rights..not inalienable
 
fine..... then you show me in america, in american law how you make your case.. ...just saying things does not do it for you.

by the way.. the DOI says unalienable rights..not inalienable
Laws don't determine fact. Every right you have can be taken from you, this proves there are no inalienable rights.

The DoI says there are inalienable rights, and since inalienable rights don't exist, the DoI is wrong.

The Constitution says there are inalienable rights, and since inalienable rights don't exist, the Constitution is wrong.

The law says there are inalienable rights, and since inalienable rights don't exist, the law is wrong.

The Supreme Court says there are inalienable rights, and since inalienable rights don't exist, the Supreme Court is wrong.

Citing legal sources to support your argument does nothing at all to actually support your argument because your sources are wrong, and we can conclusively prove this over and over.
 
Last edited:
I do not believe in natural rights. This world is what you make of it. You earn what you get. Your fate is yours to change. I don't think anyone is handed a free set of rights naturally. There is always a catch - for example Americans have their rights because they are natural born citizens (there's the catch...put in place by a society).
 
Laws don't determine fact. Every right you have can be taken from you, this proves there are no inalienable rights.

The DoI says there are inalienable rights, and since inalienable rights don't exist, the DoI is wrong.

The Constitution says there are inalienable rights, and since inalienable rights don't exist, the Constitution is wrong.

The law says there are inalienable rights, and since inalienable rights don't exist, the law is wrong.

The Supreme Court says there are inalienable rights, and since inalienable rights don't exist, the Supreme Court is wrong.

jerry, if you think the DOI and the constitution says inalienable you are wrong already from the beginning.
 
I do not believe in natural rights. This world is what you make of it. You earn what you get. Your fate is yours to change. I don't think anyone is handed a free set of rights naturally. There is always a catch - for example Americans have their rights because they are natural born citizens (there's the catch...put in place by a society).

oh.... natural rights are life and liberty, and property.

can you kill an illegal alien, enslave him, steal his property........no therefore that person has natural rights.
 
oh.... natural rights are life and liberty, and property.

can you kill an illegal alien, enslave him, steal his property........no therefore that person has natural rights.

That doesn't mean they have natural rights. Life isn't a right at all - life is the state you are presently in whether you like it or not. Liberty is something you take and fight for - not something handed to you like a gift. Property is something you earn and take for yourself. None of these things are rights. One is a state of existence and the other two are choices made in life. Really what it comes down to is choice. You might not have natural rights but you can certainly choose how your life proceeds. The slave can be obedient or he can rise up and rebel - but that's a choice rather a right. That's one of the problems in this nation. Everyone is so sure they have a right to something that they fail to see that it's not a right but a choice. People may make the choice for you but it was never a given. People expect things now instead of trying to work for them. If you want free speech...you fight to ensure it exists. You want liberty...you fight to ensure your people are safe and free. You want privacy....you fight for your privacy. The choices we make.
 
That doesn't mean they have natural rights. Life isn't a right at all - life is the state you are presently in whether you like it or not. Liberty is something you take and fight for - not something handed to you like a gift. Property is something you earn and take for yourself. None of these things are rights. One is a state of existence and the other two are choices made in life. Really what it comes down to is choice. You might not have natural rights but you can certainly choose how your life proceeds. The slave can be obedient or he can rise up and rebel - but that's a choice rather a right. That's one of the problems in this nation. Everyone is so sure they have a right to something that they fail to see that it's not a right but a choice. People may make the choice for you but it was never a given. People expect things now instead of trying to work for them.

by saying there is no natural rights, you reject all law in america, because all law is built on the foundation of our organic laws.
 
jerry, if you think the DOI and the constitution says inalienable you are wrong already from the beginning.
Last week I showed you that UNalienable and INalienable are the same word:

"The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away."

This also means that said rights could not have been "endowed by our Creator" because "endow" means "to give" and inalienable rights cannot be given.
 
Last edited:
Last week I showed you that UNalienable and INalienable are the same word:

jerry you stated the DOI says inalienable, which it does not, and the constitution does not say such a thing at all.


"The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away."

This also means that said rights could not have been "endowed by our Creator" because "endow" means "to give" and inalienable rights cannot be given.
well jerry i posted that the words have 2 different meanings.
 
FYI I don't read text placed inside the quote box. I consider it rude behavior because the respondent has to take extra steps to respond to it as the forum software doesn't place the previous quote box in the editor when writing a reply. If you would like what you write responded to, you will need to post normally.
well jerry i posted that the words have 2 different meanings.
And I just showed you that they mean the same thing.
 
FYI I don't read text placed inside the quote box. I consider it rude behavior because the respondent has to take extra steps to respond to it as the forum software doesn't place the previous quote box in the editor when writing a reply. If you would like what you write responded to, you will need to post normally.

And I just showed you that they mean the same thing.

noted on the respond item..

i showed that it had 2 meanings.
 
yes i did assert a fact. i gave two different definitions from the dictionary, sorry but you missed that.
The dictionary says they are the same. For example. You are wrong. You have always been wrong on this topic. Pride alone keeps you here prisoner. Do yourself a favor and unsubscribe from this thread.
 
The dictionary says they are the same. For example. You are wrong. You have always been wrong on this topic. Pride alone keeps you here prisoner. Do yourself a favor and unsubscribe from this thread.

oh, my dictionary is ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION......is yours?
 
A "Natural Right" is a right which cannot be taken away. Any and all rights can be taken away, including the right to life and liberty, therefore no natural rights exist. This means the Declaration of Independence is wrong. This mean the Constitution is wrong. This means the Supreme Court is wrong. This mean the law is wrong. This means the founding fathers were wrong.
 
A "Natural Right" is a right which cannot be taken away. Any and all rights can be taken away, including the right to life and liberty, therefore no natural rights exist. This means the Declaration of Independence is wrong. This mean the Constitution is wrong. This means the Supreme Court is wrong. This mean the law is wrong. This means the founding fathers were wrong.

and you are right?

i notice i did not get an answer on that dictionary .
 
Back
Top Bottom