• 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 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.

as i stated the constitution has natural rights and privileges ...ie civil rights /legal rights ....and that is all.
 
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?
:2razz:
 
no the problem is you cannt follow conversation you get into between other people. i stated tothe other posters the orginal draft was more relgious, then you jump in why i dont know...wait i do....just because you saw me post something.

It is irrelevant because this thread is about natural rights and the clearest statement of a belief in them regarding our government is in the Declaration of Independence. Not the draft - not an early version - not in lines crossed out or musings - but in the actual Declaration of Independence.
 
Okay. And if I understand you correctly your argument is thus:

1. Natural rights require that they be "inalienable."

2. If natural rights require that they be inalienable, then one must demonstrate the existence of a right that is incapable of being alienated in order to even consider the existence of a natural right.

3. Since no one has demonstrated the existence of a right that can't be alienated, natural rights do not exist.

Am I close to correctly stating your argument? If I'm off base, please correct me by restating the argument.

I'm not Jerry, but you aren't stating his position accurately. He says he understands what inalienable means and he has posted the definition. And then he proceeds to argue something other than that definition. He has argued that if somebody is prevented from exercising his/her inalienable rights, then such rights do not exist. Then of course it would logically follow that if somebody is not allowed to spend a dollar as he intends to spend it, then that dollar does not exist.

Do you understand now? :)
 
It is irrelevant because this thread is about natural rights and the clearest statement of a belief in them regarding our government is in the Declaration of Independence. Not the draft - not an early version - not in lines crossed out or musings - but in the actual Declaration of Independence.

why do you jump into things, which do not concern you and act as if you are king over them?
 
why do you jump into things, which do not concern you and act as if you are king over them?

Where do you get off acting as though you can decide who can participating if their participation is proper or not?
 
I'm not Jerry, but you aren't stating his position accurately. He says he understands what inalienable means and he has posted the definition. And then he proceeds to argue something other than that definition. He has argued that if somebody is prevented from exercising his/her inalienable rights, then such rights do not exist. Then of course it would logically follow that if somebody is not allowed to spend a dollar as he intends to spend it, then that dollar does not exist.

Do you understand now? :)

i like that;)
 
why do you get involved in a conversation which ,you were not part of ?.....and proceed to dictate.

Everyone who wants to participate in a thread is free to do so and is thus part of that conversation as it is all public and open to all. If you want a PRIVATE conversation with another poster, the board has a PM service they provide. If you do not know how to use it I will be happy to guide you through.
 
Do you understand now? :)

Not really. :lol: But I'm curious to see how he responds, because depending on what he says I have some questions for him.
 
In your post you were insulting and disparaging of persons you call STATISTS. So you do not believe in the necessity of the state then Turtle? You reject the state and the government necessary because you have converted to anarchy?

as opposed to say you calling anyone who supports the 2A "extremist right wing" etc

anarchy has nothing to do with this matter
 
as opposed to say you calling anyone who supports the 2A "extremist right wing" etc

anarchy has nothing to do with this matter

that is a blatant falsehood. I only refer to right wing extremists as right wing extremists and support for the Second Amendment is NOT part of that determination since I also support the Second Amendment as written.

You should keep in mind that you support necessity of a state the next time you insult somebody else here by calling them a statist.
 
that is a blatant falsehood. I only refer to right wing extremists as right wing extremists and support for the Second Amendment is NOT part of that determination since I also support the Second Amendment as written.

You should keep in mind that you support necessity of a state the next time you insult somebody else here by calling them a statist.
you don't support the 2A as written

you pretend that the term "shall not be infringed" does not apply to individuals. You then claimed that anything short of a total ban of all guns is not an infringement. You also claimed that if someone can own ONE gun, then their ability to ENJOY their 2A rights cannot be infringed. Later, you claimed that the founders actually wrote this provision with the INTENT that the federal government could limit restrict or impede ownership.

so I reject your specious claim that you support the 2A AS WRITTEN
 
Everyone who wants to participate in a thread is free to do so and is thus part of that conversation as it is all public and open to all. If you want a PRIVATE conversation with another poster, the board has a PM service they provide. If you do not know how to use it I will be happy to guide you through.

you jumped into a conversation and then complained about what i was addressing to another person, which he and i were discussing.

you jumped as if i was making a general statement, which i was addressing something he said to me.
 
you don't support the 2A as written

you pretend that the term "shall not be infringed" does not apply to individuals. You then claimed that anything short of a total ban of all guns is not an infringement. You also claimed that if someone can own ONE gun, then their ability to ENJOY their 2A rights cannot be infringed. Later, you claimed that the founders actually wrote this provision with the INTENT that the federal government could limit restrict or impede ownership.

so I reject your specious claim that you support the 2A AS WRITTEN

And you ignore the militia part
 
And you ignore the militia part

no I don't

what is funny is statists thinking that "well regulated militia" somehow has any relevance to the peoples' right being recognized
 
He has argued that if somebody is prevented from exercising his/her inalienable rights, then such rights do not exist.
I don't argue that the right doesn't exist at all, the right is just not a Natural Right. It might be a Human Right or a Civil Right, but if it can be taken away then it's not a Natural Right. This is about what kind of right it is, not if the right exists at all.
 
Last edited:
Okay. And if I understand you correctly your argument is thus:

1. Natural rights require that they be "inalienable."

2. If natural rights require that they be inalienable, then one must demonstrate the existence of a right that is incapable of being alienated in order to even consider the existence of a natural right.

3. Since no one has demonstrated the existence of a right that can't be alienated, natural rights do not exist.

Am I close to correctly stating your argument? If I'm off base, please correct me by restating the argument.
It's a lot simpler than that. Natural Rights by definition cannot be taken away or given up, so any right which can be taken away or given up is not a Natural Right. It may still be a Human Right or a Civil Right, it's just not a Natural Right.

Life and liberty can be taken away or given up, which means life and liberty are not Natural Rights.
 
as i stated the constitution has natural rights and privileges ...ie civil rights /legal rights ....and that is all.
That's the rub...the Constitution says something is a Natural Right, but the thing it names very clearly is not a Natural Right, which means the Constitution is wrong. The DOI is wrong. The founders were wrong.

And yes stateists like heymarket will exploit that, but it's true regardless.
 
you don't support the 2A as written

you pretend that the term "shall not be infringed" does not apply to individuals. You then claimed that anything short of a total ban of all guns is not an infringement. You also claimed that if someone can own ONE gun, then their ability to ENJOY their 2A rights cannot be infringed. Later, you claimed that the founders actually wrote this provision with the INTENT that the federal government could limit restrict or impede ownership.

so I reject your specious claim that you support the 2A AS WRITTEN

Since your own interpretation is an extremist one which ignores why the words were written in the first place and the purpose of it and the other provisions of the Constitution that impact it - your rejection of my support for the Second Amendment is both irrelevant and worthless.
 
you jumped into a conversation and then complained about what i was addressing to another person, which he and i were discussing.

you jumped as if i was making a general statement, which i was addressing something he said to me.

Everyone who wants to participate in a thread is free to do so and is thus part of that conversation as it is all public and open to all. If you want a PRIVATE conversation with another poster, the board has a PM service they provide. If you do not know how to use it I will be happy to guide you through.
 
It's a lot simpler than that. Natural Rights by definition cannot be taken away...

Let me stop you there. ANY right can be "taken away" in the sense that a person can be deprived of it. The issue, though, is whether someone who isn't the grantor of the right can "take it away" in the ethical or legal sense. In the case of natural rights, we're talking about a moral or ethical state of affairs. Perhaps you don't believe in morality; you just assume that life exists and there's no point to it. Whatever rights you get come only from a beneficial human. If that's the case, then our discussion is over, because no amount of moral proselytizing on my part will sway you. But from a legal standpoint if the state says, for example, that you have a right to be repaid for a debt and I just say, "Screw it. I'm not repaying you," according to your logic your right to repayment ends there. I mean, if you're going to argue that someone other than the grantor of a right can "take it away" then, well, I just took your right away.
 
Let me stop you there. ANY right can be "taken away" in the sense that a person can be deprived of it.
Right, exactly, and that means they are not inalienable rights, because they can all be taken away.


The issue, though, is whether someone who isn't the grantor of the right can "take it away" in the ethical or legal sense.
"In an ethical sense" describes a Human Right under a social contract, and "in a legal sense" describes a Civil Right under a government.


In the case of natural rights, we're talking about a moral or ethical state of affairs.
That's a right under civil law, a Civil Right. That is not a Natural right.

Perhaps you don't believe in morality; you just assume that life exists and there's no point to it.
A moral is a self-imposed rule, I have self-imposed rules, like only drinking on my days off (which are few and far between), therefore I believe in and practice morality.

Whatever rights you get come only from a beneficial human.
Rights for being human are Human Rights. My Human Rights are not Natural Rights because all of my Human Rights can be taken away.

But from a legal standpoint if the state says, for example, that you have a right to be repaid for a debt and I just say, "Screw it. I'm not repaying you," according to your logic your right to repayment ends there.
You keep mixing up the 3 kinds of rights. Here you're talking about a Civil Right to compensation for work, you have stopped talking about Natural Rights.

I mean, if you're going to argue that someone other than the grantor of a right can "take it away" then, well, I just took your right away.
The only difference between a Natural Right and a Human Right is that a Natural Right can not be taken away by anyone nor by any means. If it can be taken away, it is therefore by definition not a Natural Right.
 
Since your own interpretation is an extremist one which ignores why the words were written in the first place and the purpose of it and the other provisions of the Constitution that impact it - your rejection of my support for the Second Amendment is both irrelevant and worthless.

see that proves my point

my position is consistent with the founders
consistent with EVERY document generated by the founders that even remotely touches on the right
consistent with what those who believed in natural rights would say
consistent with the main body of the constitution that NEVER EVER delegated any authority to the federal government to interfere with what kind of small arms private citizens owned
consistent with the environment of the 1780s and 1790s

you on the other hand have never ever supported your claim that "shall not be infringed" actually was intended to allow all sorts of interference with said natural right
 
see that proves my point

my position is consistent with the founders
consistent with EVERY document generated by the founders that even remotely touches on the right
consistent with what those who believed in natural rights would say
consistent with the main body of the constitution that NEVER EVER delegated any authority to the federal government to interfere with what kind of small arms private citizens owned
consistent with the environment of the 1780s and 1790s

you on the other hand have never ever supported your claim that "shall not be infringed" actually was intended to allow all sorts of interference with said natural right

Your position is iconsistent with reality and the actual words of the Amendment.

Here is my position:

The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.




Now who agrees with me?




Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.




And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.

You trying to justify your belief about guns based on another belief - natural rights - means nothing since it is only a theory and cannot be proven to be true or real beyond a belief.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom