• 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
wrong the principles of the u.s. state that the rights of citizens are to be secure, and this nation was founded on those principles, and they are recognized by u.s. federal law.

Because the US citizens agree to do so. Federal law can change. All laws governing men, that we live under, are subject to change.
 
Because the US citizens agree to do so. Federal law can change. All laws governing men, that we live under, are subject to change.


again you have nothing but your own words...your own words...no facts.... to prove your case, nothing!

these are the principles of the U.S.....which are recognized by u.s. federal law, and is an organic law of the u.s.....and u.s. code


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.


enabling act

AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States.

(Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of all that part of the area of the United States now constituting the Territories of Dakota, Montana, and Washington, as at present described, may become the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington, respectively, as hereinafter provided.



SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship


http://www.leg.wa.gov/History/State/Pages/enabling.aspx[/QUOTE]
 
again you have nothing but your own words...your own words...no facts.... to prove your case, nothing!

these are the principles of the U.S.....which are recognized by u.s. federal law, and is an organic law of the u.s.....and u.s. code


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.

AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States.

(Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of all that part of the area of the United States now constituting the Territories of Dakota, Montana, and Washington, as at present described, may become the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington, respectively, as hereinafter provided.



SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship


http://www.leg.wa.gov/History/State/Pages/enabling.aspx
If a right is unalienable, then you don't need a government to secure it. An unalienableI right cannot be taken from you, or willfully given up, by any means. That's what the word means.
 
Last edited:
Sure, if I had enough money/resources to build a rocket to take me there. But do I have to do so to have ownership of something? You don't have to physically possess something to claim ownership of it.

I was only curious how you were going to get there. Owning something without the ability to use it is completely pointless, but very much possible all the same.
 
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.

You seem to be confusing the existence of a right with the ability to exercise that right. A slave has an inalienable right to be free even when he's a slave.
 
You seem to be confusing the existence of a right with the ability to exercise that right. A slave has an inalienable right to be free even when he's a slave.

a right is essentially a just claim. and thus you are correct
 
If a right is unalienable, then you don't need a government to secure it.

unalienable means they are not created by man, and therefore no person/ entry has a lien on your rights.

to secure .... means to secure it from other people and governments

IF MAN WORKED IN HARMONY WITH MAN, AND THERE WERE NEVER WARS, DISPUTES, ARGUMENTS ...BECAUSE MAN COULD WORK OUT HIS DIFFERENCES,......THEN WHY WOULD GOVERNMENT EVEN NEED TO EXIST?

"if men were angels ,no government would necessary"-james madison

rights of the people are not granted to the people, but recognized by the constitution, and they require only that government stand back while they are exercised.

privileges of the government which are granted to the people, require government to take an action so you can exercise the privilege.
 
You seem to be confusing the existence of a right with the ability to exercise that right. A slave has an inalienable right to be free even when he's a slave.
No confusion at all, they are one in the same. If you cannot excersize a right, you therefore do not have that right. A slave does not have an inalienable right to be free, and this is proven by the fact that he is not free.

The very definition of "inalienable" means it cannot be taken away or given up, so when it's taken away or given up, it is therefore not inalienable.

There is no inalienable right to life. There is no inalienable right to liberty. Those are civil rights under this social contract and must be defended with force or they are lost. Inalienable rights need no defending because they can't be taken away by any means.
 
Last edited:
Except who decides what a "just claim" is? What is "just" is subjective.

ultimately you are going to say that all law is subjective
 
No confusion at all, they are one in the same. If you cannot excersize a right, you therefore do not have that right. A slave does not have an inalienable right to be free, and this is proven by the fact that he is not free.

You're wrong. As a matter of principle, he does.
 
Look at gun laws across the states and argue they all follow some national standard.

most of them are idiotic
 
ultimately you are going to say that all law is subjective

No, laws are relative, when referring to the laws that govern individual groups of people. There are no laws that govern all people, at least not that we have had on this planet. Even if there were, the people would still have to agree (either directly or passively) to be governed by those laws or be unable to avoid being subjected to their authority.
 
No, laws are relative, when referring to the laws that govern individual groups of people. There are no laws that govern all people, at least not that we have had on this planet. Even if there were, the people would still have to agree (either directly or passively) to be governed by those laws or be unable to avoid being subjected to their authority.

some laws apply to all people

gravity, terminal ballistics and thermodynamics all come to mind:mrgreen:
 
You're wrong. As a matter of principle, he does.
Is that like a gun-free zone where a magical "matter of principal" forcfield is supposed to stop a would-be transgresser?

As a matter of fact, he does not have any such inalienable right. Neither do you. Neither do I.

These rights you speak of are perfectly alienable through Due Process and by force. They are not inalienable and are therefore not Natural Rights.
 
I'm not sure I know how to classify these rights. Maybe they're not rights at all and just "cultural universal". They're certanly part of the human condition and trancend government, so they're more than Civil Rights, yet they are alienable, so they're not Natural Rights.
 
Right, they change with the civil structure as opposed to remaining consistent regardless of the civil structure. This makes life, liberty & property civil rights, not inalienable natural rights.

Please note, the 14th Amendment provides that a person may be so deprived of their rights through Due Process. If these were inalienable rights, no process could deprive you of them.

Unalienable rights are a very different thing from legal rights or constitutional rights just as social contract is a very different thing from a legal contract. However legal rights or legal contracts can be used to protect either or both. But both concepts are unchangeable and constant no matter what words we use to describe or define them.
 
No, actually it isn't. Ethics are subjective and legality is relative to the place you live and who you view as having authority over you. It is completely possible (no matter how improbable) that we could have aliens come to our planet tomorrow and claim ownership of the entire world, and every living thing on it, including us. Who gets to tell them no? Us? Well what if we are unable to defend "our" planet? What if it turns out that their species terraformed our planet billions of years ago and they really did technically own it?

Again the fact that somebody may assume power to deny you the liberty to exercise your unalienable rights as you choose does not mean that those rights no longer exist.
 
This topic seems to have popped up in a few threads recently so I thought I'd put this together. Put simply do you believe in the concept of natural rights? That is to say rights that are "not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable".

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. It is part of what makes civilization so essential and so valuable, because by creating a society we attempt to lift ourselves out of that war of all against all. This allows for freedom of speech, property rights, press freedoms, freedom of worship, etc. Absent organized society these 'rights' would be purely theoretical.

Rights can be legal, social, or ethical.

Legally, in the United States, we do have some form of natural rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Socially, it's pretty much dog eat dog absent some sort of shared moral backbone such as shared religious or moral beliefs that guide the conduct of how we treat one another.

Ethically, we certainly do have the right to have done unto us as we would do unto others. Therefore, if you wouldn't want to be a slave, don't enslave others. If you wouldn't want to be robbed, don't rob others. If you wouldn't want to be silenced, don't silence others. Etc
 
Unalienable rights are a very different thing from legal rights or constitutional rights just as social contract is a very different thing from a legal contract. However legal rights or legal contracts can be used to protect either or both. But both concepts are unchangeable and constant no matter what words we use to describe or define them.
Inalienable rights are diferent in that they don't exist. Every right you have, can be taken from you.

The only possible exeption is the persuit of happiness, because even if you're chained in a cell and doped up, you can still "persue happiness"; like the old saying "you can cage my body but never my spirit". But even that can be argued to be a condition of our being and not an actual right.
 
Only because American laws recognizes you as a citizen and maritime law recognizes certain claims on islands that are not already claimed. However, all of that necessitates that those laws exist and that recognition exists, which are man made and subject to change at any time. So your claim on the land means absolutely zilch without the recognition of others saying that they agree to your claim and them being willing to defend you and your claim.


Let me throw my 2 cents in here.

Rights, by definition, can be either legal, social, or ethical.

Beginning with the ethical - you can claim that ethics are subjective, and that's true to a marginal extent, but, largely, human ethics are universal. Nearly every culture on earth has an ethical system that boils down to the golden rule: do to others what you would have them do to you. In other words, treat people as you feel you deserve to be treated. That forms the foundation for what we might call "natural rights."

Socially, if we can agree on this guiding ethical principle, we then interpret this and begin to structure society in a way that protects these rights for the members of that society.

We then come up with laws. Laws which, of course, are unique to specific goverrmsnts and cultures but which, nonetheless, share a number of guiding principles.

For instance, murder is illegal in nearly every culture on earth. This implies a right to life. Theft and slavery are nearly universally illegal. This implies the right to property and liberty.

You see, we get so hung up on our differences sometimes, we start to believe morality and legality to be completely subjective and cultural. In fact, our commonalities are much more profound and run much deeper than our differences.

Every child learns not to hit other children, to share, to treat others with respect, etc. These shared values carry in to adulthood and in to the laws which we create for ourselves.
 
Inalienable rights are diferent in that they don't exist. Every right you have, can be taken from you.

The only possible exeption is the persuit of happiness, because even if you're chained in a cell and doped up, you can still "persue happiness"; like the old saying "you can cage my body but never my spirit". But even that can be argued to be a condition of our being and not an actual right.

You can have rights taken away in a legal and social sense, but never in an ethical sense.

I wouldn't say that a slave has no right to liberty, I would say he has had his right to liberty trampled on by someone who doesn't respect that person's inherent human rights
 
You can have rights taken away in a legal and social sense, but never in an ethical sense.

I wouldn't say that a slave has no right to liberty, I would say he has had his right to liberty trampled on by someone who doesn't respect that person's inherent human rights
There is no such "ethical sense" in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom