• 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
UNALIENABLE rights



The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

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,

Sorry, UNalienable. Doesn't change the fact that the view of such rights, as expressed in the DOI, was highly contingent on a higher power that granted them. (I share this viewpoint, so I am not arguing against such a power. I am arguing that use of the DOI to support our governmental view of 'natural rights' requires the acknowledgement of the religious backing of such rights.)
 
A LAW DICTIONARY
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
by John Bouvier in 1839

Revised Sixth Edition, 1856

INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.”


UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government.

The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”

Black‘s 2nd (A.D. 1910)


INALIENABLE.“Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.”


UNALIENABLE..“Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”
And since your rights to both life and liberty can each be aliened from you, they are not inalienable, which in turn means they are not Natural Rights.
 
sorry, unalienable. Doesn't change the fact that the view of such rights, as expressed in the doi, was highly contingent on a higher power that granted them. (i share this viewpoint, so i am not arguing against such a power. I am arguing that use of the doi to support our governmental view of 'natural rights' requires the acknowledgement of the religious backing of such rights.)

well i have said the [DOI] is subjective to the reader, meaning rights can come from god, your humanity, nature itself, it up to the reader and his own interpretation, but that rights do not come from man.
 
this shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

i posted in original constitutional law...you challenged it

then you hand me this.....no wonder you constantly fail!

NO - you posted your opinion about what it meant. And that is based on willful delusion as not a single Supreme Court decision in 225 years supports your extremist, far right fringe view of the powers of the federal government. Not one single decision.

Its just you out there on that far far far right extremist limb with no one else there who has ever had the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution and making the kind of inane statement that you have done here.
 
well i have said the [DOI] is subjective to the reader, meaning rights can come from god, your humanity, nature itself, it up to the reader and his own interpretation, but that rights do not come from man.

You have clearly stated that you believe natural rights come from a Creator - a god or God and that is what the Declaration says.
 
And since your rights to both life and liberty can each be aliened from you, they are not inalienable, which in turn means they are not Natural Rights.

a person always has rights, however at times those rights are suppressed like being in prison following due process of law.

governments who use force to surprise rights to keep people under control

but all men were originally born free in the world, it is the actions of others who suppress those rights.

is it natural for me to:

speak

pray

associate

defend myself...among others
 
Last edited:
You have clearly stated that you believe natural rights come from a Creator - a god or God and that is what the Declaration says.

the key word here is "YOU".....that is my personal opinion....but the DOI is subject to the reader and not what i believe.


Unlike you...... my personal ideas/beliefs, don't get in the way of law like yours do.
 
Not in the slightest: Unalienable / Inalienable

"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."

Your right to life can be taken away from you. This proves your right to life is not inalienable, which means your right to life is not a Natural Right.

No. Your life cannot be taken from you by anybody nor can you transfer it, sell it, or give it away to anybody else. It can be ended by somebody killing you. But he who kills you did not receive your life in the process.
 
NO - you posted your opinion about what it meant. And that is based on willful delusion as not a single Supreme Court decision in 225 years supports your extremist, far right fringe view of the powers of the federal government. Not one single decision.

Its just you out there on that far far far right extremist limb with no one else there who has ever had the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution and making the kind of inane statement that you have done here.

i don't need a decision from USSC , because the founders themselves PROVE MY POINT!...which i have posted many times.
 
well i have said the [DOI] is subjective to the reader, meaning rights can come from god, your humanity, nature itself, it up to the reader and his own interpretation, but that rights do not come from man.

Not sure a statement "that they are endowed by their Creator" is open to subjective interpretation. The authors are specifically stating that these rights are derived from a higher power. You can feel free to disagree with the statement itself, but it is entirely evident that the DOI was written by religious authors with a religious understanding of rights.
 
the key word here is "YOU".....that is my personal opinion....but the DOI is subject to the reader and not what i believe.


Unlike you...... my personal ideas/beliefs, don't get in the way of law like yours do.

What unmitigated BS! Your personal beliefs are so intertwined with everything you post that it is impossible to separate one from the other. Your fast talking scam - "its up to the reader" is such unadulterated nonsense as a wannabe escape hatch permitting you to not have to debate the idea of gods dispensing rights like Halloween candy in the sky is so transparent that it is laughable. And that is the sole purpose of it.
 
i don't need a decision from USSC , because the founders themselves PROVE MY POINT!...which i have posted many times.

Thanks for confirming that you cannot find a decision which supports your absurd claim that the federal government has no authority over people.. That shows you just how far extremist.... how far on the fringe ... how divorced from reality .... how you live in another world not reality based it is that not one decision in 225 agrees with such unadulterated nonsense.
 
Not sure a statement "that they are endowed by their Creator" is open to subjective interpretation. The authors are specifically stating that these rights are derived from a higher power. You can feel free to disagree with the statement itself, but it is entirely evident that the DOI was written by religious authors with a religious understanding of rights.


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.

what is the god of nature...some do not equate that to the god of heaven

Jefferson original draft was more of a religious nature, the final draft toned it down more.
 
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.

what is the god of nature...some do not equate that to the god of heaven

Jefferson original draft was more of a religious nature, the final draft toned it down more.

so now you are reduced to picking through drafts and scraps to find some language you believe allows you to fudge this issue even more? Amazing!!!!!
 
Thanks for confirming that you cannot find a decision which supports your absurd claim. That shows you just how far extremist it is that not one decision in 225 agrees with such unadulterated nonsense.

don't need one, the founders say the federal government has no power in the lifes liberty and property of the people....that is fact.......

you emotional content........is a breath of fresh air to the conversation......because it spells your desperation
 
don't need one, the founders say the federal government has no power in the lifes liberty and property of the people....that is fact.......

you emotional content........is a breath of fresh air to the conversation......because it spells your desperation

As usual - there is the world of EB based on his own willful mental processes which are clearly not reality based and then there is the reality that the rest of the nation lives with. The sad truth is that when you claim the federal government has no power over people - there is not a single US Supreme Court case which agrees with you. Not a one in 225 years. In fact EB, I have researched this and cannot find a single Court justice who holds your opinion that the federal government has no power over people. Not a one.

That shows you how delusional your belief is. That shows you how far far far out there you are on this claim.

http://accredited-times.com/2013/08/08/352/

In May of this year, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was published by the American Psychiatric Association. This near-comprehensive set of diagnostic criteria is just another example of the progress which government-funded medical research has made in recent years. Many hurdles remain, however, and psychiatric professionals are discovering new personality disorders and previously unknown mental dysfunctions on a near-daily basis. With that in mind, I offer the two following observations:


1: Psychosis is defined by experts as a mental state involving a “loss of contact with reality.” (1)

2: Ludwig von Mises, a cult figure among Right-wing extremists and described by many as the “Paul Krugman of Libertarianism”, once offered the following bizarre statement in defense of his repugnant ideology:

“Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification and falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts.” (2)

The consensus amongst professional Economists today is that this statement is merely another glaring example of the shoddy circular logic and solipsistic reasoning for which extreme right-wing “thinkers” are notorious. Could it be, however, that an altogether more tragic story lies behind the creation of Ludwig von Mises’ hate-filled works? Perhaps history may judge the man more kindly if the sociopathic nature of his “philosophy” can one day be ascribed to mental ill health rather than wilful malice.

This really needs to be explored much much more as an explanation for why not one Superme Court decision or even Justice agrees with your extremist beliefs.

That is not emotional on my part - its hard cold fact. What you do not like is the obvious exposure of the nature of you beliefs and of the delusions that are at the center of your ideas and ideology. So you then turn and attack me with nonsense like you just did.
 
Last edited:
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.

It appears you're still confused. First of all, a principle can be a fact. Secondly, "due process" is a legal doctrine that bears little relation to the concept of a natural right, so when you try to blend the two you're mixing apples with oranges. Also, you're attempting to redefine the context and understanding of "inalienable" as it's been understood by philosophers going back at least to the ancient Greeks. Finally, when you assert that one person can, as a matter of fact, kill another, you're referring to a natural law, not a right.

Now, I can't empirically or objectively prove that killing 50 or 60 million people in the span of just a few years like Mao did was wrong, and, for the sake of argument, I'm willing to concede that. On the other hand, when you claim that there is no inalienable, natural right to life the burden of proof falls to you. On what basis do you make that claim? :confused:
 
read the original draft.

For what purpose? The document that is official is the one under discussion. Again - that is REALITY. You really have trouble dealing with REALITY and want to keep coming back to alternate realities that you subscribe to.
 
As usual - there is the world of EB based on his own willful mental processes which are clearly not reality based and then there is the reality that the rest of the nation lives with. The sad truth is that when you claim the federal government has no power over people - there is not a single US Supreme Court case which agrees with you. Not a one in 225 years. In fact EB, I have researched this and cannot find a single Court justice who holds your opinion that the federal government has no power over people. Not a one.

That shows you how delusional your belief is. That shows you how far far far out there you are on this claim.

Accredited Times | Of Mises and Madmen: Is Libertarianism a Mental Illness?

That is not emotional on my part - its hard cold fact. What you do not like is the obvious exposure of the nature of you beliefs and of the delusions that are at the center of your ideas and ideology. So you then turn and attack me with nonsense like you just did.

if you could use logic and not get into the emotional part of talking about me, maybe,maybe you could make your point, but until then.....your emotions, are "your own undoing"
 
For what purpose? The document that is official is the one under discussion. Again - that is REALITY. You really have trouble dealing with REALITY and want to keep coming back to alternate realities that you subscribe to.

because i just pointed out to the other poster.... that the original DOI was more religious then one which is in the national archives...
 
if you could use logic and not get into the emotional part of talking about me, maybe,maybe you could make your point, but until then.....your emotions, are "your own undoing"

Usually the name calling begins when your opponent has run out of arguments. I take it as a sign that he's growing tired and is about to bail to another thread.
 
a person always has rights, however at times those rights are suppressed like being in prison following due process of law.
Of course people have all kinds of Human Rights, like breathing, and Civil Rights, like voting, but this thread is not about any of those.

This thread is about Natural Rights, spicificly and only.

The definition of Natural Right requires that the right be inalienable. If a right is alienable, it may still be a right of some kind, but it is not a Natural Right.
 
No. Your life cannot be taken from you by anybody nor can you transfer it, sell it, or give it away to anybody else. It can be ended by somebody killing you. But he who kills you did not receive your life in the process.
They don't need to recieve my life.

My life needs only to be alienated from me.
 
if you could use logic and not get into the emotional part of talking about me, maybe,maybe you could make your point, but until then.....your emotions, are "your own undoing"

There is nothing emotional about an analysis of the motivation of a persons views when they are so divorced from the reality that almost everyone else lives with.

But do tell us EB - what do you find EMOTIONAL about the American Psychiatric Association and their definition of psychosis and how it applies to the political views of some extremists?
 
Back
Top Bottom