• 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
Ahlevah said:
While natural rights aren't granted by the state, they can be upheld and enforced by the state. According to our founding document, securing natural rights is the principal purpose of civil government.
Click to expand...
You put your finger right on the folly: if a thing cannot be taken away, you don't need to secure it. Natural Rights by definition cannot be taken away, thus we don't need a government to secure them.

We need a government to secure rights which can be taken away, which by definition are not Natural Rights.

Ahlevah said:
Living is a natural right.
Click to expand...
No it is not, because through murder or suicide you can be alienated from your right to live.

Ahlevah said:
Voting is a civil right.
Click to expand...
Correct, voting (for Congress and Senate, but not President) is a right granted by the Constitution that you would not otherwise have.

Ahlevah said:
Both can create cause for a person to seek remedy or damages in a civil court.
Click to expand...
That your right to life can be damaged proves it is not inalienable and thus not a Natural Right.
 
Cephus said:
It doesn't matter how you frame your definition of gods or natural rights, if you cannot demonstrate that either of them exist in any meaningful way in the real world, then they are just illusions. That is what we're pointing out to you. It rests entirely on your shoulders to demonstrate such things are real. If you cannot, and in both cases, you freely admit that you cannot, then nobody is obligated in any way, shape or form to take you seriously. I don't care what you call it. I care what you can demonstrate. You've got nothing. Just be honest about it already.
Click to expand...

what do you mean by "real"?
 
Sherman123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
A little late to be joining the thread, and probably will not add much, but here goes.

I don't really understand the concept of "natural" rights. Rights only truly exist if infringement can be prevented or results in some kind of liability. That generally requires some sort of civil action, making all rights in essence civil.

I think the concept makes sense in countries that don't have a Constitution - certain rights become in a sense inalienable, even though no provision has been made for them by statute. But I think that still makes them a form of civil right.
 
I believe in natural rights that are recognized by humankind
 
Krhazy said:
Rights only truly exist if infringement can be prevented...
Click to expand...

If by "truly" you mean de facto, I'd say you're correct. Otherwise, no. If I steal my classmate's lunch money he still has a right to it even as he's been deprived of it.
 
shrubnose said:
All dead people have the right to remain silent, it's the only right that they can use.
Click to expand...

How about the right to peaceably assemble? It's not like they're going to riot or anything.
 
shrubnose said:
All dead people have the right to remain silent, it's the only right that they can use.
Click to expand...

the dead have no rights....reason and sentience are inherent to rights... the dead are kinda lacking in both, cuz.. you know...they're dead.
 
Sherman123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Rights exist regardless of whether or not they are granted. People have a right to their own life even if someone kills them and nobody cares. Organized society and civilization is so essential and so valuable not because it creates rights but because defends them.
 
Lakryte said:
Rights exist regardless of whether or not they are granted. People have a right to their own life even if someone kills them and nobody cares. Organized society and civilization is so essential and so valuable not because it creates rights but because defends them.
Click to expand...
You're talking about Human Rights, and I agree, but this thread is about Natural Rights.
 
Thrilla said:
what do you mean by "real"?
Click to expand...

Dictionaries are your friend.

re·al1
ˈrē(ə)l/
adjective
1.
actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
 
Andalublue said:
I just consulted a dictionary on the word 'inalienable' and it tells me that the subject is: "Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor". So we're caught in the 'is/ought' dilemma. Are we to believe that an 'inalienable right' cannot or merely should not be taken or given away? My reading of that definition is the former. What makes you think it is the latter?
Click to expand...

I have now posted numerous definitions on the word from numerous sources. And all are in agreement. Something that is not 'subject to' means it cannot be done. You cannot sell, barter, or give away an unalienable right nor can anyone take it from you. You can agree not to exercise an unalienable right and somebody might prevent you from exercising it, but you still have it nevertheless.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I have now posted numerous definitions on the word from numerous sources. And all are in agreement. Something that is not 'subject to' means it cannot be done. You cannot sell, barter, or give away an unalienable right nor can anyone take it from you. You can agree not to exercise an unalienable right and somebody might prevent you from exercising it, but you still have it nevertheless.
Click to expand...
If someone prevents you from exercising a right, you therefore do not have it, because if you had the right you could do it no matter how much they don't like it.

If some posts a no-gun sign in their private building, I therefore do not have the right to carry there. Since my right to self defence was blocked, that proves the right to self defense is not a Natural Right.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
I have now posted numerous definitions on the word from numerous sources. And all are in agreement. Something that is not 'subject to' means it cannot be done. You cannot sell, barter, or give away an unalienable right nor can anyone take it from you. You can agree not to exercise an unalienable right and somebody might prevent you from exercising it, but you still have it nevertheless.
Click to expand...

And yet someone can prevent you from exercising it too. This is one of those abstruse arguments like whether a tree falling in a deserted forest really makes a noise. Can a right that cannot be exercised be said to exist? Can it be said to be inalienable if one can be prevented from exercising it? if one argues that it can, then the concept of a right becomes something altogether hypothetical.
 
Jerry said:
If someone prevents you from exercising a right, you therefore do not have it, because if you had the right you could do it no matter how much they don't like it.

If some posts a no-gun sign in their private building, I therefore do not have the right to carry there. Since my right to self defence was blocked, that proves the right to self defense is not a Natural Right.
Click to expand...

Ah, I think I just parroted your argument in my last post. Well put!
 
Andalublue said:
And yet someone can prevent you from exercising it too. This is one of those abstruse arguments like whether a tree falling in a deserted forest really makes a noise. Can a right that cannot be exercised be said to exist? Can it be said to be inalienable if one can be prevented from exercising it? if one argues that it can, then the concept of a right becomes something altogether hypothetical.
Click to expand...

Yes an unalienable right can and does exist whether or not it is exercised for any reason. All you have to do is read the dictionary definitions to know that. And it is not the lest bit hypothetical. You cannot buy or sell or barter or give away or receive your concept of what it is to pursue happiness. Somebody else may prevent you from doing it or you may choose not to do it, but it remains yours nevertheless. The Constitution was written so that the federal government was prohibited from preventing you from doing it and was prohibited from interfering with any of your other unalienable rights.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
Yes an unalienable right can and does exist whether or not it is exercised for any reason.
Click to expand...
Then you are changing the meaning of 'in-' or 'unalienable' from meaning 'is not subject to being taken away from of given away by the possessor' to 'should not be taken away from or given away by the possessor'. All you have to do is read the dictionary definitions to know that.

And it is not the lest bit hypothetical. You cannot buy or sell or barter or give away or receive your concept of what it is to pursue happiness.
Click to expand...
Now you appear to be quibbling, because something entirely 'conceptual' IS hypothetical.

Somebody else may prevent you from doing it or you may choose not to do it, but it remains yours nevertheless.
Click to expand...
In a hypothetical sense, yes.

The Constitution was written so that the federal government was prohibited from preventing you from doing it and was prohibited from interfering with any of your other unalienable rights.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I zoned out here because what your constitution says has no relevance to me.
 
TurtleDude said:
complete nonsense. Jefferson certainly believed HE, and those Like him had natural rights
Click to expand...

The nonsense is in your refusal to wreathe words that Jefferson actually wrote and which others signed - ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and have rights including LIBERTY.

How you or anyone else can pretend to deny that basic reality is beyond understanding.
 
Cephus said:
No, I don't understand why you think natural rights exist at all. What you've got there is what we call wishful thinking. It's a fantasy. It's something that appeals to you on a purely emotional level, not on an intellectual one. You have no rational justification for these claims you make but it makes you feel good to keep making them. That's why the whole concept is laughable and why nobody is taking you seriously.
Click to expand...

Best post of the day!!!!
 
Thrilla said:
what do you mean by "real"?
Click to expand...

Something that many right libertarians truly have never understood as the very concept is outside of their self imposed belief system.
 
haymarket said:
The nonsense is in your refusal to wreathe words that Jefferson actually wrote and which others signed - ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and have rights including LIBERTY.

How you or anyone else can pretend to deny that basic reality is beyond understanding.
Click to expand...

that has nothing to do with reality. You pretend that Jefferson's failure to include blacks some how means he didn't believe that WHITE MEN (citizens) had natural rights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom