• 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!

The natural attributes of private rights

Wow. Do you really not know what "chattel slavery" is? Or the history of slavery in the New World? Yikes.

I do have a lack of understanding of the history you are talking about
 
Junzhuo Gu said:
If your private rights are not protected, do you think you can still enjoy other rights normally?
Click to expand...
What does that even mean? Curtailing one specific type of right does not necessarily result in the curtailment of other rights.


Human rights are actually a complete whole.
Click to expand...
Oh? And which rights do you mean by "human rights?" Where do they come from? Who decides which rights are "human rights" and which are not?

What does this even mean? Different societies protect different rights to different degrees. For example, the EU has stronger privacy protections than the US; does that mean that the US completely violates all rights? Does it mean the US does not really protect property rights?


In fact, almost all your legitimate rights cannot be guaranteed.
Click to expand...
Oh? And which rights are "legitimate rights?" Where do they come from? Who decides which rights are legitimate, and which are not?

Most nations do not recognize any right to bear arms, certainly not in an unlimited fashion. Is the UK a dictatorship as a result? France? Japan? No, no, no. Does that mean that the right to bear arms is not natural? Not human? Not legitimate?
 
Junzhuo Gu said:
I do have a lack of understanding of the history you are talking about
Click to expand...
Well, maybe you should fix that.

"Chattel slavery" is when you treat other human beings like property. It's the type of slavery utilized in the United States before the Civil War ended it.

Before slavery was outlawed, laws that protected property were in fact applied to deprive people of their basic humanity and all of their rights. Makes ya think, huh?

And I might add that as bad as life was in totalitarian states with command economies, it was nowhere near as bad as actual slavery. So, maybe you should cool it with the extreme metaphors.
 
Rich2018 said:
LOL


So you don't believe me when I say I don't believe you...


OK then, settle the issue and give a definition of Eminent Domain

And then explain how "Eminent Domain is socialism in practice"




Please give an example of a "social moral"





Please quote the social contract that defines "socialism".
Click to expand...

I already told you what it was.

Please rebut my actual argument.
 
danielpalos said:
I already told you what it was.

Please rebut my actual argument.
Click to expand...

Where and in what post# is your definition of Eminent Domain ?

And then explain how "Eminent Domain is socialism in practice"




Please give an example of a "social moral"


Please quote the social contract that defines "socialism".
 
Visbek said:
What does that even mean? Curtailing one specific type of right does not necessarily result in the curtailment of other rights.



Oh? And which rights do you mean by "human rights?" Where do they come from? Who decides which rights are "human rights" and which are not?

What does this even mean? Different societies protect different rights to different degrees. For example, the EU has stronger privacy protections than the US; does that mean that the US completely violates all rights? Does it mean the US does not really protect property rights?



Oh? And which rights are "legitimate rights?" Where do they come from? Who decides which rights are legitimate, and which are not?

Most nations do not recognize any right to bear arms, certainly not in an unlimited fashion. Is the UK a dictatorship as a result? France? Japan? No, no, no. Does that mean that the right to bear arms is not natural? Not human? Not legitimate?
Click to expand...
1. The connection between rights is very obvious. Suppose you lose the right to avoid illegal arrest. Your right to be protected from harm is likely to be violated. You are easily detained illegally and tortured illegally.
2. Human rights obviously have natural attributes and are innate. Such as the right to food. You have this right, you can survive. For example, selling labor is the basic way for many people to obtain income, and labor rights are obvious. As a human being, you may know the basic rights needed to maintain your normal life. Therefore, all the necessary rights to maintain a person's normal and dignified life should be clearly protected by national legislators through legislation. All reasonable human rights are not granted to you by anyone, but you deserve and are protected. Obviously because of our understanding of the rights that a person should have in a modern society. Generally, the rights we see in animals that are necessary to maintain their survival should be reasonably owned by humans.
3. We live in a country and we assume that the government of this country can fully protect individual rights. Then the right to own weapons is not necessary. Such non-essential rights laws do not confirm the personal possession and should not harm his other rights. But if the government damages the rights that citizens must have in the form of law, then other rights of citizens must also be damaged. For example, private right is a necessary right, if it is deprived by law. Other rights of citizens must be violated.
4. Human rights belong to everyone. A person cannot be divided. Actually, the rights of a person are also the whole. Therefore, if necessary and reasonable human rights are violated or deprived in a legal form, I think the human rights of actual individuals are generally compromised.
 
Visbek said:
Well, maybe you should fix that.

"Chattel slavery" is when you treat other human beings like property. It's the type of slavery utilized in the United States before the Civil War ended it.

Before slavery was outlawed, laws that protected property were in fact applied to deprive people of their basic humanity and all of their rights. Makes ya think, huh?

And I might add that as bad as life was in totalitarian states with command economies, it was nowhere near as bad as actual slavery. So, maybe you should cool it with the extreme metaphors.
Click to expand...
If you understand the situation of being North Korea, you will realize that North Koreans are actually typical slaves.
 
Rich2018 said:
Where and in what post# is your definition of Eminent Domain ?

And then explain how "Eminent Domain is socialism in practice"




Please give an example of a "social moral"


Please quote the social contract that defines "socialism".
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to my actual argument. Why are you avoiding the argument?
 
danielpalos said:
Irrelevant to my actual argument. Why are you avoiding the argument?
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't make sense

Where and in what post# is your definition of Eminent Domain ?

And then explain how "Eminent Domain is socialism in practice"




Please give an example of a "social moral"


Please quote the social contract that defines "socialism".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom