• 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
Of course caveman, as much as anybody else, had the right to pursue happiness in any way available to him. For him happiness might have been defeating the sabertooth tiger or finding supper for the day or just enjoying great weather or whatever. We Americans indeed did fight for the ability to pursue happiness as we chose to pursue it unrestricted from the dictate of monarch or church authority or anybody else who would deny us that choice.

At what point does an action that you can do become a 'natural right'? (e.g. throwing stones at fish)

At what point does an action that you can no longer do not become a 'natural right'? (e.g. as someone said, claim the moon)
 
At what point does an action that you can do become a 'natural right'? (e.g. throwing stones at fish)

Unless they are someones fish, sure, throw the rocks. It would probably get boring in a few seconds anyway.

At what point does an action that you can no longer do not become a 'natural right'? (e.g. as someone said, claim the moon)

There is no reason someone can't claim the moon. I can buy something that is across the world or I can buy something right down the street. There is no rule of ownership that deals with distance.
 
Unless they are someones fish, sure, throw the rocks. It would probably get boring in a few seconds anyway.

There is no reason someone can't claim the moon. I can buy something that is across the world or I can buy something right down the street. There is no rule of ownership that deals with distance.

So throwing rocks at fish is a natural right (as long as the fish don't belong to anyone)?

And I could claim the entire natural resources of the Andromeda galaxy, as it is my natural right to do so?

When rights are defined so broadly they lose all practical meaning.
 
So throwing rocks at fish is a natural right (as long as the fish don't belong to anyone)?

And I could claim the entire natural resources of the Andromeda galaxy, as it is my natural right to do so?

When rights are defined so broadly they lose all practical meaning.
:doh....
 
So throwing rocks at fish is a natural right (as long as the fish don't belong to anyone)?

Yes. Fish are property.

And I could claim the entire natural resources of the Andromeda galaxy, as it is my natural right to do so?

When rights are defined so broadly they lose all practical meaning.

Yeah, I suppose. You seem to have forgetten that people claimed entire continents not that long ago.
 
You cannot guaranty rights which do not exist before you create them. But besides that obvious reality your convoluted statement makes no sense. For a change why don't you try something really radical - instead of you telling us what people believe about this issue - simply QUOTE what specific people said and let them speak for themselves instead of the dishonest charade of you reframing what you want them to say in your own words so you can create a straw man and then thump your chest when you brutalize it? That would indeed be refreshing for a change.

and you are claiming my statement is "convoluted"?
 
You mean that thing that theists miserably fail to demonstrate? That deity? :roll: No wonder you're a libertarian, libertarianism is almost identical to religion in a lot of ways.

so does being slightly conservative mean one is undecided or unsure about one's beliefs?
 
At what point does an action that you can do become a 'natural right'? (e.g. throwing stones at fish)

pretend you walking in the forest of ohio in 1790 and you come upon a lake with fish jumping , and the land, lake,fish is not owned by anyone..can you throw stones at them.......yes, because they are the property of no one.


At what point does an action that you can no longer do not become a 'natural right'? (e.g. as someone said, claim the moon)

you at in the pacific ocean on a ship hundreds of miles from other land, and a island were to appear out of nowhere, and you step ashore on it and no one is there but you, can you claim it as your property....... of course you can


......
 
Yes. Fish are property.

Yeah, I suppose. You seem to have forgetten that people claimed entire continents not that long ago.

I'm not forgetting they did it. I'm just unsure how it arose that they had the right to do it.

So in your eyes, literally any action that you can take that does not infringe upon the rights of others is a natural right? Or is there something else that differentiates a natural right from 'thing you can do'.
 
so does being slightly conservative mean one is undecided or unsure about one's beliefs?

No, it means that I share some things with those who identify as conservative (often wrongly IMO) and some that do not.
 
I'm not forgetting they did it. I'm just unsure how it arose that they had the right to do it.

Well, the way it arose involved theft on a grand scale, and so what they did is not justified by natural rights. Still, someone could in theory own all that land and not violate anyone's rights.

So in your eyes, literally any action that you can take that does not infringe upon the rights of others is a natural right? Or is there something else that differentiates a natural right from 'thing you can do'.

Yes, that is correct.
 
So throwing rocks at fish is a natural right (as long as the fish don't belong to anyone)?

And I could claim the entire natural resources of the Andromeda galaxy, as it is my natural right to do so?

When rights are defined so broadly they lose all practical meaning.

BINGO! You win a cruise to the Bahamas. People who push the natural rights fantasy are always confusing mere abilities because of the biology of the species with rights.
 
you at in the pacific ocean on a ship hundreds of miles from other land, and a island were to appear out of nowhere, and you step ashore on it and no one is there but you, can you claim it as your property....... of course you can


......

You could also claim you are Napoleon.
 
BINGO! You win a cruise to the Bahamas. People who push the natural rights fantasy are always confusing mere abilities because of the biology of the species with rights.

People who don't like the limitations the Bill of RIghts imposes on the federal government try to undermine those restrictions with all sorts of silly diversions
 
You could also claim you are Napoleon.

Well, I just need surgery for that and bam I'm mother****ing Napoleon.

Sorry, that was horrible. Forgive me. :D
 
:lamo is is funny, from a guy who just proclaims everyone to be wrong but provides nothing, and when he cannot make his point, he talks about people personally....

Maybe you ought to watch the video then. :roll:
 
Maybe you ought to watch the video then. :roll:

your cannot defeat the founding fathers, our founding documents....natural law / unwritten law.

1763

Every British Subject born on the continent of America, or in any other of the British dominions, is by the law of God and nature, by the common law, and by act of parliament, (exclusive of all charters from the crown) entitled to all the natural, essential, inherent and inseparable rights of our fellow subjects in Great- Britain......


The end of government being the good of mankind, points out its great duties: It is above all things to provide for the security, the quiet, and happy enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. There is no one act which a government can have a right to make, that does not tend to the advancement of the security, tranquility and prosperity of the people.


The Rights of the Colonists

November 20, 1772

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.

All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.


The Declaration Independence of the thirteen united States of America July 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


U.S. constitution

Amendment V


December 1791

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.
 
Last edited:
Unwritten Law

Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.

Most laws in America are written. The U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims <--------self evident truths........... of human conduct <-------------natural rights.........that the government recognized ,<------------recognized in the constitution................and enforced<---------------by positive law/statute.

Unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.

Much of International Law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the Rules of War governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the United Nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of Terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.

In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In Constitutional Law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution. In Commercial Law the Uniform Commercial Code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of Common Law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or Maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law.

unwritten law legal definition of unwritten law

Unwritten law refers to the law based upon custom, usage, and judicial decisions. It is distinguished from the enactments of a legislature, orders or decrees in writing. Although an unwritten law is not enacted in the form of statute or ordinance, it has got legal sanction. An unwritten law need not be expressly evidenced in court decisions, but may be collected, gathered or implied there from under statute.

In In re Estate of Spoya, 129 Mont. 83 (Mont. 1955), the court held that unwritten law is the law not promulgated and recorded, but which is, nevertheless, observed and administered in the courts of the country. It has no certain repository, but is collected from the reports of the decisions of the courts and treatises of learned men.


USLegal

Unwritten Law Law & Legal Definition


https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/80_2/03_Nelson.pdf

State and Federal Models of the Interaction between Statutes and Unwritten Law
 
Last edited:
For the sake of argument, even though I agree it was wrong because that's how we view things in the western world, how do you know those things were wrong? What is your criteria? Right and wrong are entirely subjective, surely the Nazis didn't think that what they were doing was wrong or they wouldn't have done it. So please, demonstrate that you have some kind of correct moral high ground that goes beyond subjective claims. I don't think you can do it.

How do I know these things were wrong? Reason? Common sense? A belief that people in the only natural society there is, the family, have a natural affinity for one another? That life has value?

And why do you seem to think only people in the West feel this way? Try this on for size: How many people were taking numbers to go to Pol Pot's Killing Fields? Where do you think the Maoist Khmer Rouge got its inspiration from? How many tens of millions of Chinese intellectuals do you think volunteered to be forced from their careers in cities to starve to death or serve as slaves in forced-labor camps or collectives? How many Tutsis do you think lined up to get hacked to death by Hutus during the Rwandan Genocide? So, really, where is the subjectivity here? I mean, is it natural to want to succumb to starvation or watch as your parents are sliced up like Italian sausages? :confused: I'm not convinced.
 
The Organic Laws of the United States

The four primary documents - The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Constitution

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.



When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
 
Back
Top Bottom