• 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
Personally I don't. I think that Hobbes had it right when he intimated that the only 'natural right' that a human being possesses is the right to strive for their own survival. Everything else exists only at the sufferance of your own strength or the kindness of others

Eh, see...I don't see Hobbes notion as being inconsistent with the belief of Natural Rights.

I believe Human's have natural rights, IE that which they are free to do. A person by simply existing in this world can say what they want, go to where they want, believe what htey want, take what they want, etc. There is no inherent internal limit upon a person from doing those things.

However, it is simply a natural right to have the capacity to do those things. There is no natural right to have your rights protected nor respected by anyone else. Engaging in your rights either requires that it does not conflict with anyone else OR, if it does, that either you are stronger in some fashion and thus can force your will upon them OR they are benevolent and allow you to do it.

Forming society simply codifies the protections related to some rights; it forms a social agreement of where individuals will benevolently allow your rights to be acted upon and where they will join together to stop them from occuring.

I definitely believe in Natural Rights, and believe them to be a significantly different thing than Societal Rights.
 
It's not at all inconsistent to argue that "rights" are as inalienable as ones ability to enforce them, while fighting to enforce ones "rights".
 
Actually he did :). He described slavery as an abominable crime, considered it a violation of the founding beliefs of the nation, tried to limit and restrict it so that it would die naturally (sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing), and lamented that he could not find a practical solution to its' absolution.

You could say that his actions were not perfectly self-sacrificial in order to serve his beliefs, and I think you'd get most folks to agree with you on the hypocrisy. But that doesn't change his belief system.


To say that "his actions were not perfectly self sacrificial in order to serve his beliefs" is an understatement that belongs in the category that a trans continental walk is a decent workout.

They were the direct and complete opposite of what he stated. You could not get more opposite or contrary.

So what it comes down to is do you judge the man by his mere words or by his actual daily actions and deeds. And you are wise enough to know a hundred examples which all say the same thing - actions speak louder than words.

Yes - the politically naive or the gullible or those virgins to such matters can be taken in and fooled by a politicians words. But you do not fit into any of those categories.
 
you have made that claim many a time and it continually fails to accurately discuss the difference between scope and coverage. The founders certainly believed the natural rights were there for THEM

Scope - covereage - cranistans - frangeleo's - all nonsense trying to justify somebody saying the equal of molesting children is wrong while buggering a 12 years old as the words pour from their lips. If that is offensive - it is meant to be since slavery is about as offensive as one can get.

And you are wrong that they believed natural rights were only there for them. Jefferson clearly wrote that ALL MEN were included. And Jeffersons own writings made it very very clear leaving no doubt that he was well aware that Africans were human beings and what was being done was an abomination.
 
That is incorrect. If it is abused then its exercise can be taken from you, not the right itself.
If you cannot excersize the right, the right still exists but you have been alienated from it. It is still a right but it is not an inalienable right.

If you are blocked from practicing religion freely, your right to free religious expression has been alienated from you.

Think of it as similar to ownership -
Perfect example to prove my argument. If my car is stolen, it's still my car, but I have been alienated from it. It has been taken from me. Also if my car were inalienable, I could never sell it or give it away. My car is therefor not inalienable.
 
If people had an inalienable right to life, Hitler could have shot them each 6000 times and they would be unharmed.

Hitler alienated their right to life from them, which demonstrates their right to life was not inalienable, thus not a Natural Right.

Having the ability to deny a person of a right doesn't mean he's forfeited his entitlement to it. If, for example, I ask you for a loan and as soon as you hand over the money I say, "Thanks for the gift" you still have a right to be repaid. Even if you wore a Size 2 hat and I was able to repeat the process 6,000 times the logic of this would still hold true.
 
Scope - covereage - cranistans - frangeleo's - all nonsense trying to justify somebody saying the equal of molesting children is wrong while buggering a 12 years old as the words pour from their lips. If that is offensive - it is meant to be since slavery is about as offensive as one can get.

And you are wrong that they believed natural rights were only there for them. Jefferson clearly wrote that ALL MEN were included. And Jeffersons own writings made it very very clear leaving no doubt that he was well aware that Africans were human beings and what was being done was an abomination.

have you ever come close to proving your claims about the founders? we get the fact that you pretend that the bill of rights really didn't say what the words say because some OTHERS who signed the DOI didn't really believe that ALL MEN were created equal due to slavery

but the silly grand canyon level jump you make has never been established as true
 
If you cannot excersize the right, the right still exists but you have been alienated from it. It is still a right but it is not an inalienable right.

That convenient rationalization ignores reality. If you have something to use or exercise- then you really truly do have it. If you do not have something to use or exercise - then you don't. Pure and simple that is the way that reality works. I strongly suspect that Africans used as slaves in the States would find cold comfort in the assertion that they really had liberty but it was an inconvenient matter that they were just temporarily alienated from it.

All the fancy rationalizations and pretty words do not change that simple reality.

Of course the problem here is that all this natural rights nonsense is not at all based on reality and the way that things work in the real world with real people and real governments. Its all fancy sounding theory that came from the dilettante class trying to counter the idea of divine right of kings.
 
Having the ability to deny a person of a right doesn't mean he's forfeited his entitlement to it.
I never claimed the contrary.

We're discussing "Natural Right", which must be inalienable. If a given right can be infringed it is still some kind of right, just not a Natural Right.
 
have you ever come close to proving your claims about the founders?

Absolutely. The FACT that Jefferson owned over 100 slaves is well documented and you have been given that evidence in the past. You have also been given evidence from the Monticello website of Jefferson and slavery and his own position. Do you question that FACT and need to see it again?

http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

Jefferson considered slavery to be horribly wrong and he knew that Africans were humans - men. The ownership of he and others of slaves was a direct and complete opposite of the hollow lies that all men are created equal and have rights including liberty.

Only the extremely uniformed or the naive or the gullible would dare to judge a mans hollow words as more meaningful rather than the much stronger and opposite actions that openly defecate upon those high sounding pronouncements.
 
Last edited:
Perfect example to prove my argument. If my car is stolen, it's still my car, but I have been alienated from it.

You have been alienated from the use of it, not the ownership of it.

You can be alienated from the execution of your rights, but not from the right itself.

Someone can punish you or harm you for believing in a religious notion and expressing that...but they can't physically force you to be unable to have belief and practice that belief. They can simply put significant deterrents against it that make you choose not to engage in that right, but they can't take the inherent right away from you.
 
You have been alienated from the use of it, not the ownership of it.

You can be alienated from the execution of your rights, but not from the right itself.

Someone can punish you or harm you for believing in a religious notion and expressing that...but they can't physically force you to be unable to have belief and practice that belief. They can simply put significant deterrents against it that make you choose not to engage in that right, but they can't take the inherent right away from you.

"ownership of it"!?!?!?!?! Slaves in America - especially the ones born here - never had any liberty to own in the first place. They had "ownership" of nothing in the way of liberty or rights.

That convenient rationalization ignores reality. If you have something to use or exercise- then you really truly do have it. If you do not have something to use or exercise - then you don't. And all the fancy comparisons to other things like objects are irrelevant. Pure and simple that is the way that reality works. I strongly suspect that Africans used as slaves in the States would find cold comfort in the assertion that they really had liberty but it was an inconvenient matter that they were just temporarily alienated from it.

All the fancy rationalizations and pretty words do not change that simple reality.

Of course the problem here is that all this natural rights nonsense is not at all based on reality and the way that things work in the real world with real people and real governments. Its all fancy sounding theory that came from the dilettante class trying to counter the idea of divine right of kings. The philosophers had to come up to counter the idea of divine right and what they countered with was an even higher power - God himself giving all men rights. The entire natural rights theory came about because they needed to get beyond the practical effects of divine right. In a sense - it was power politics and a weapon used to lay the foundation to weakening the power of the king and expand power among the people.

But it is no longer the 1600's and we do not need to come up with fancy talk to convince the world that the king should not rule because he was blessed by the gods. Sadly, some are still stuck in the mindset of the 1600's on this matter.
 
The United Nation's International Bill of Human Rights entered into force in 1976

Start learning about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bill_of_Human_Rights

It would be nice if the UN could enforce that all over this planet.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. The FACT that Jefferson owned over 100 slaves is well documented and you have been given that evidence in the past. You have also been given evidence from the Monticello website of Jefferson and slavery and his own position. Do you question that FACT and need to see it again?

http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

Jefferson considered slavery to be horribly wrong and he knew that Africans were humans - men. The ownership of he and others of slaves was a direct and complete opposite of the hollow lies that all men are created equal and have rights including liberty.

Only the extremely uniformed or the naive or the gullible would dare to judge a mans hollow words as more meaningful rather than the much stronger and opposite actions that openly defecate upon those high sounding pronouncements.

the fact that Jefferson owned 100 slaves in no way proves or even insinuates he believed that white men like him did NOT have natural rights

BTW he didn't' write the 2nd Amendment or the bill of rights so all this silly diversion over slavery and the DOI is dilatory nonsense

Only the extremely dishonest or those who know they have no argument would dare to claim that the Bill of rights didn't say what the language of said bill said because OTHER men owned slaves and signed the DOI

For those who don't follow this argument, I have argued that interpreting the scope of the Bill of rights-especially the second amendment must involve an understanding of natural rights

Haymarket claims that since some of the men who SIGNED the Declaration of Independence really didn't believe that SLAVES, Indians and others unlike the signers had said rights, the people who WROTE and ratified the BILL OF RIGHTS really didn't believe said rights applied to WHITE MEN like them
 
I believe in the right to fight for 'self-ownership' in the context of your own survival.
It is the only right I can think of that cant be taken away from you.
The 'will to live' or 'will to survive' is what I'm getting at. Other than that everything is dependent upon your own strength and the intentions of others.



What rights does a dead person have?
 
Right, and that means it's not a natural right.

Not at all, because choosing not to engage in a right because of potential deterrents does not make said right inalienable.
 
Nature does not grant people rights, it grants people abilities. People are arguing that because nature grants me the ability to breathe, eat, sleep, think, poop, etc that I have a right too. Nature grants me the ability to kill everyone and everything, that does not make it my right.
If I get stung in the neck by a bee, and I lose my ability to breathe, is the bee taking away my right to breathe or just the ability?
 
the fact that Jefferson owned 100 slaves in no way proves or even insinuates he believed that white men like him did NOT have natural rights

Jefferson did not claim that only white men had natural rights. He said that ALL MEN had them.

So your point fails completely as its based on a totally false premise.

BTW he didn't' write the 2nd Amendment or the bill of rights so all this silly diversion over slavery and the DOI is dilatory nonsense

I realize that the issue of the Second Amendment is your pet issue and you are obsessed with it. However, this is NOT a gun thread nor a discussion about rights associated with guns.

The fact is that the Constitution is a very practical document and it does NOT contain the very clear statement about natural rights that the Declaration contains. Thus, any intelligent discussion about the Founders and natural rights has to center on their clearest statement which is the Declaration - not the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Jefferson did not claim that only white men had natural rights. He said that ALL MEN had them.

So your point fails completely as its based on a totally false premise.



I realize that the issue of the Second Amendment is your pet issue and you are obsessed with it. However, this is NOT a gun thread nor a discussion about rights associated with guns.

The fact is that the Constitution is a very practical document and it does NOT contain the very clear statement about natural rights that the Declaration contains. Thus, any intelligent discussion about the Founders and natural rights has to center on their clearest statement which is the Declaration - not the Constitution.

complete nonsense. so it is your position that bill of rights was not intended to recognize and guarantee natural rights based on what the Declaration of Independence said versus what those who signed the DOI believed?
 
complete nonsense. so it is your position that bill of rights was not intended to recognize and guarantee natural rights based on what the Declaration of Independence said versus what those who signed the DOI believed?

Quite right. The dictionary definition of 'unalienable' is that which cannot be taken away or transferred to anybody else. One example would be that nobody can take away my capacity to love, nor can I give that capacity to anybody else. Nobody can take away my desire or appreciation for liberty nor can I give that to anybody else. The stronger, more powerful, etc. can deny me the ability to speak or demonstrate or exercise such rights openly and with impunity but cannot take them away. The purpose of the Constitution was to recognize and protect such rights to prevent the stronger, more powerful, whether in government or not, to interfere with anybody's liberty to exercise his/her unalienable rights so long as he/she infringed on nobody else's rights.
 
Quite right. The dictionary definition of 'unalienable' is that which cannot be taken away or transferred to anybody else. One example would be that nobody can take away my capacity to love, nor can I give that capacity to anybody else. Nobody can take away my desire or appreciation for liberty nor can I give that to anybody else. The stronger, more powerful, etc. can deny me the ability to speak or demonstrate or exercise such rights openly and with impunity but cannot take them away. The purpose of the Constitution was to recognize and protect such rights to prevent the stronger, more powerful, whether in government or not, to interfere with anybody's liberty to exercise his/her unalienable rights so long as he/she infringed on nobody else's rights.

I just find it amazing that some pretend that the bill of rights was NOT INTENDED to guarantee such natural rights because the people who SIGNED (not the people who wrote the Bill of rights) the DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE supposedly did not actually believe what the DOI said

talk about a specious jump and a bogus attempt to limit what our constitutional rights are
 
Quite right. The dictionary definition of 'unalienable' is that which cannot be taken away or transferred to anybody else. One example would be that nobody can take away my capacity to love, nor can I give that capacity to anybody else. Nobody can take away my desire or appreciation for liberty nor can I give that to anybody else. The stronger, more powerful, etc. can deny me the ability to speak or demonstrate or exercise such rights openly and with impunity but cannot take them away. The purpose of the Constitution was to recognize and protect such rights to prevent the stronger, more powerful, whether in government or not, to interfere with anybody's liberty to exercise his/her unalienable rights so long as he/she infringed on nobody else's rights.

Even by your definition, your inalienable rights are only inalienable in the US, where they are protected by government. In any other country they are not inalienable at all.

There are 154 constitutions in the world. Each of them specify different rights that belong to the people. You have no right to bear arms in England, nor in Australia, natural or otherwise. Not only is the right not 'inalienable', it doesn't exist full stop. If these rights are natural, why are they dependent on national lines which are clearly artificial?
 
Back
Top Bottom