• 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!

What rights SHOULD we have?

What rights SHOULD we have?


  • Total voters
    50
You can play with semantics any way you like but the FACT is we create rights by law and by SCOTUS decision. We call them rights, they act as rights and they are rights.

The Constitution was intended to give the government absolutely zero power over the RIGHTS the Founders, to a man, believed the people are born with. I swear I don't have a clue what is being taught as Constitution or civics in schools these days. But to not thoroughly teach that concept, in my opinion, is criminal.
 
The Constitution was intended to give the government absolutely zero power over the RIGHTS the Founders, to a man, believed the people are born with. I swear I don't have a clue what is being taught as Constitution or civics in schools these days. But to not thoroughly teach that concept, in my opinion, is criminal.

I'm sure you are good at philosophy but you fail at science.
 
In science you would first need to define your terms exactly. This would lead to the philosophical and sematic debates I was referring to. In science we can measure things exactly....not so in philosophy.

Your experiment is a philosophical one and does not meet the standard of scientific method

It's a scientific experiment. It's called a poll. Conduct the experiment yourself. Report the results. The results of your poll are quantifiable. They can be measured with absolute precision. You will find, as does everyone else, the results are universal.
 
It's a scientific experiment. It's called a poll. Conduct the experiment yourself. Report the results. The results of your poll are quantifiable. They can be measured with absolute precision. You will find, as does everyone else, the results are universal.

This is what I would say in that poll? What is expression? How do you define life? ANY scientists would require that first. That is science
 
It's a scientific experiment. It's called a poll. Conduct the experiment yourself. Report the results. The results of your poll are quantifiable. They can be measured with absolute precision. You will find, as does everyone else, the results are universal.

I could easily answer no to all three questions based on clear definitions
 
This is what I would say in that poll? What is expression? How do you define life? ANY scientists would require that first. That is science

You don't understand what life is? You don't understand what expression is? Do you also not understand what self defense is?

:lamo

Just conduct the experiment. Report your results.
 
You don't understand what life is? You don't understand what expression is? Do you also not understand what self defense is?

:lamo

Just conduct the experiment. Report your results.

Arguments about when life beings have been the basis of philosophical debates for centuries. Are you kidding?
 
You don't understand what life is? You don't understand what expression is? Do you also not understand what self defense is?

:lamo

Just conduct the experiment. Report your results.
I answered no to every question
 
Accepting an agreement is not personal opinion. It's a personal action. And it's universal, proving the agreements are socially natural.



Of course they did. The rights to life, expression and self defense. You're being impossible. It's obviously very important for you to fail to understand the concept of socially natural rights.

"Socially natural rights" just means what is culturally acceptable to a society at a given point in time. Up until the early 20th century, it was not "socially natural" for women to vote. It was unnatural.
 
No you are not as I have demonstrated

Have you? All I have seen you demonstrate is what appears to be significant ignorance about what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the concepts behind both were all about.
 
"Socially natural rights" just means what is culturally acceptable to a society at a given point in time.

Wrong. It means universal agreements throughout time and place.

Up until the early 20th century, it was not "socially natural" for women to vote. It was unnatural.

Rights are violated. That does not mean they pop into and out of existence.
 
Have you? All I have seen you demonstrate is what appears to be significant ignorance about what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the concepts behind both were all about.

Well scotus agrees with me so I do have that. Lol
 
Well scotus agrees with me so I do have that. Lol

Actually it doesn't since it has never rendered an opinion on what unalienable rights are since Chisholm vs George in 1793 that declared the people, not the state, to be sovereign.
 
What rights SHOULD we have?

The poll contains a list of items. Some already are Constitutional rights, and some are not.

Pick the ones that, if you were starting a brand new country today, you would want included as rights. Not privileges, but rights. "Other" is not included as there were too many options, so if you want to add something that is not on the list you will have to do so in a comment.

1) Right to bear arms
2) Right to drive
3) Freedom of Speech
4) Healthcare
5) Right to Life
6) Protection against unreasonable search and seizure
7) Protection against self-incrimination
8) Right to Privacy
9) Right to Trial by Jury
10) Right to Vote

Note: I'm limited to 10 items, so I had to pick what is hopefully a good representation. There are many others that I would have liked to include.

all of the above
 
Wrong. It means universal agreements throughout time and place.

Like what? There is no such thing, as far as I know. They have all been cultural and social constructs, different and changing through different societies and cultures across time. Remember, even owning slaves was a "right" at one time:

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina, 1861

""... under the same protection as any other species of lawful property...That the Ten Commandments are the word of G-d, and as such, of the very highest authority, is acknowledged by Christians as well as by Jews...How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments--how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job--the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he emphatically connects his own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to give the character of 'perfect, upright, fearing G-d and eschewing evil' (Job 1:8)--that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?" 1
-MJ Raphall, 1861


Rights are violated. That does not mean they pop into and out of existence.

Rights are created by societies, much like their laws or languages. They do not exist outside of them in some otherworldly realm. Out in nature, the only rights anyone has is what they can get through brute force. There are no "natural rights". In civil societies, we only have the rights we are willing to extend and protect for each other through systems of law, order, and government.
 
Last edited:
Like what? There is no such thing, as far as I know. They have all been cultural and social constructs.




Rights are created by societies, much like their laws. They do not exist outside of them in some otherworldly realm. Out in nature, the only rights anyone has is what they can get through brute force. There are no "natural rights". In civil societies, we only have the rights we are willing to extend and protect for each other.

See post #119.
 
I saw post 119. You are talking about concepts of "justice". But if I told you that I think I would be willing to protect the rights to vote for everyone, except women and colored people, though. Not anyone was didn't own land either.

That was the position of the authors of the Constitution and the ideas of natural rights to whom you are appealing. Our society later on just decided to extend those rights to those other groups as well. Changing social construct. Nothing "natural" about them.

Like I said, there are no rights out in "nature" except what you can get for yourself through brute force. If you are in a position of weakness or vulnerability, you are out of luck. You have no rights.
 
Actually it doesn't since it has never rendered an opinion on what unalienable rights are since Chisholm vs George in 1793 that declared the people, not the state, to be sovereign.

Scotus has declared rights thru their decisions
 
you should have the right to any and all healthcare you can afford. sort of like firearms. you should be able to own any firearm you can afford to buy.

Well I tend to agree with the firearms but in 2017 people use firearm to mean a wide variety of stuff. If it shoots bullets I don't think I really disagree. For healthcare though I would like to see it subsidized in a large way like many other countries. The way our system is now an accident can easily bankrupt many families and I'm not talking families living on the edge normal financially sound families and I don't think that is right in a country like ours.
 
No right to drive, healthcare or privacy. I'm not against the right to general privacy I'm just not sure how you could enforce it

A good way to enforce the right to privacy is create a privacy watch dog which can mandate to the government what is legal and what is not legal with regard to privacy.

Like when your license plate is photographed and checked for warrants etc. and it comes up with no hits/problems/warrants or anything else, the government should be mandated to then destroy that record/image with your license plate and location immediately.

The same goes for police surveillance schemes in the US like the one I watched about today on Vice, there hundreds of cameras and microphones where set up all across that city recording and storing hundreds and thousands of hours of people's lives. That should not be allowed to be stored indefinitely and should be destroyed after (for example) three months if no report of a crime for that time frame and that location has been filed.

Like in the Netherlands this watch dog, in accordance with the relevant European watch dogs ruling has stated that prospective employers and even actual employers almost never have the right to watch on their employees facebook or instagram to watch what he does in the weekend or on holidays. There may be exceptions but those should be just that, exceptions and they have to be verifiable and of importance to violate the privacy of their employee or prospective employee.

And company's have to take steps to protect the privacy of their customers, just like the government should do that of it's citizens.

Like when the Authority Personal data was warned about a debt collecting agency that wanted to name and shame people who did not want to pay back their debt by filming them and making their names and faces public on youtube for the entire world to see. While the AP did not formally rule on this issue (in part because the debt collecting company removed the video and has not done it again) said that such violation of privacy was unacceptable for simply not paying a debt.

For all privacy related issues we have the "Personal Data Protection Act"

For example,

The processing of personal data relating to a person’s religion or belief, race, political affinity, health, sex life and trade union membership is prohibited, subject to the provisions of this Division.

Now this does not mean that your local church cannot have you in their filing system with your religion, nor can your political party be forced to not record your political affinity or your trade union from registering you as a member.

But for example if you came for a membership of a gym, a normal run of the mill gym, they are not allowed to make an application form for that gym which asks questions about your religion/belief, political affinity, health, sex life or trade union membership. They cannot even put in their computer system which race you are. There is no valid reason for a gym to need or record that information.

The same would be if Netflix (they are not, don't get me wrong) would ask on their application for membership what race you are.

That is protecting the privacy of people and I think people have a right to privacy and to have their personal data protected by the government (and from the government, hence the need for an independent judiciary and an independent watch dog).
 
Back
Top Bottom