• 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 rights of man and the duty of citizens

haymarket said:
When JFK was done with his speech, did he provide any actual verifiable evidence for his two statements of belief
1- in God
2- that God gives us rights independent of any involvement or action by man?
Click to expand...

Prove with verifiable facts that verifiable facts are needed for validation.
 
NO1 said:
All these right become meaningless once I'm the last person on the planet, who exactly going to risk my ability to gain and protect my property and myself? Even the cocept of property is pointless.
Click to expand...

whether or not your rights are threatened is a separate matter to you having them or not.

but yes, rights would be a moot point when you're the last man standing.... you still have them, though.
 
NO1 said:
precisely, rights without social context are meaningless.
If your rights are meaningless, what difference does it make if you have them or not?
Click to expand...

Mathematics without social context are meaningless, so I'm not sure of your point.

Rights are part of a construct that allows societies to thrive. Societies, of course, consist of more than one person. Your silly hypothetical was answered honestly, but you don't like that it seems.

Is it true that no man is an island? Are you REALLY the only human left on the planet, or do you live within a society?

If we are to live within a society, we must live by a system of rights and laws.

I really don't get your point here. I understand that rights are intangible, but what are you trying to say?
 
NO1 said:
The abilty to talk is not a right, once your are alone in this plant your freedom of speech has no meanining, your are really stretching the defenition of rights.

Lets try something alse, imagine that asteroid hits this plant and you are the only survivor, now you reach to your pocket and find 5 doller bill, do you agree this 5 doller bill is meaningless? Do you agree we can say you got no money?
Click to expand...

I don't have to imagine anything. You asked "what about free speech?" I answered. The fact that you don't accept the answer is your problem.

Now, if you are still confused feel free to read back through ALL my prior responses to nay-sayers in this thread. If you still find no satisfaction...too bad. :coffeepap:
 
If there are no natural rights, where does the basis for the consent of the governed arise?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Even then, the social context is YOU, as the totality of human society. You then exercise your free will to either strive to survive or kill yourself, since your right to life is now completely within your own hands.
Click to expand...

You can do that every single day of your life, no matter how many humans are around.

Doesnt seem to make any point.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Rights are taken not granted or inalienable. I want rights, I have them as long as I can defend them. If I cant, I have no rights.
Click to expand...

That is factually not true. The govt...thru the law...recognizes your rights and upholds many of them...whether you defend them or not.
 
OpportunityCost said:
If there are no natural rights, where does the basis for the consent of the governed arise?
Click to expand...

It's a man-made concept. As are most, if not all, the behaviors and motivations that support humans living together in tribes without killing each other and enabling the most offspring to survive.
 
Lursa said:
It's a man-made concept. As are most, if not all, the behaviors and motivations that support humans living together in tribes without killing each other and enabling the most offspring to survive.
Click to expand...

Consent of the governed arises from the idea that people deserve a say in how they are governed---it is a construct of Natural rights theory.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Consent of the governed arises from the idea that people deserve a say in how they are governed---it is a construct of Natural rights theory.
Click to expand...

LOL it existed long before 'natural rights theory.'
 
Thrilla said:
whether or not your rights are threatened is a separate matter to you having them or not.

but yes, rights would be a moot point when you're the last man standing.... you still have them, though.
Click to expand...
So they moot but you still got them? I really dont understand that.
 
Lursa said:
LOL it existed long before 'natural rights theory.'
Click to expand...

Not that we have any proof of. We have Plato/Aristotle and the Greeks, I don't know of any references before that. Unless you possibly go to Hammurabi and the Code of Law but that's not as conclusive.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Mathematics without social context are meaningless, so I'm not sure of your point.

Rights are part of a construct that allows societies to thrive. Societies, of course, consist of more than one person. Your silly hypothetical was answered honestly, but you don't like that it seems.

Is it true that no man is an island? Are you REALLY the only human left on the planet, or do you live within a society?

If we are to live within a society, we must live by a system of rights and laws.

I really don't get your point here. I understand that rights are intangible, but what are you trying to say?
Click to expand...
My words was in response to the idea that there are rights that has no social context, rights that no need any recogintion and every person enforce his own right. So I tried to show that in this case these rights has no value.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Not that we have any proof of. We have Plato/Aristotle and the Greeks, I don't know of any references before that. Unless you possibly go to Hammurabi and the Code of Law but that's not as conclusive.
Click to expand...

Any tribal society was founded on that principle if it wasnt a complete dictatorship. Humans developed heirarchical behaviors in order to do exactly that...live together under rule by consensus. You need to go back a little further and also understand the actual origins of human societies....and how in order to be successful, the concept of rights was one 'idea' developed by man to enable that.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I don't have to imagine anything. You asked "what about free speech?" I answered. The fact that you don't accept the answer is your problem.

Now, if you are still confused feel free to read back through ALL my prior responses to nay-sayers in this thread. If you still find no satisfaction...too bad. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...
Of course you don't have to imagine anything, I asked you that in order to understand your stance so I can see exactly where is the point of the disagreement that it's part of disscussion as you probably know, it's a simple question and if you dont want to answer that's fine.
 
Lursa said:
Any tribal society was founded on that principle if it wasnt a complete dictatorship. Humans developed heirarchical behaviors in order to do exactly that...live together under rule by consensus. You need to go back a little further and also understand the actual origins of human societies....and how in order to be successful, the concept of rights was one 'idea' developed by man to enable that.
Click to expand...

I get that but we don't see any great evidence of a civilization upholding those ideals until the Greeks. Very scant evidence in ancient Chinese civilization but nothing beyond the tribal. Most every other system at the time was might makes right sort of system or a hierarchal one.
 
OpportunityCost said:
I get that but we don't see any great evidence of a civilization upholding those ideals until the Greeks. Very scant evidence in ancient Chinese civilization but nothing beyond the tribal. Most every other system at the time was might makes right sort of system or a hierarchal one.
Click to expand...

You keep saying it yourself: "Ideals"

Ideals are man-made concepts.

And heirarchical systems are not 'might makes right.' For humans, while there are alphas and subordinates, they are not dicators and they are cooperative societies.

There is plenty of evidence. What havent you read on this subject? Try Jared Diamond, Richard Dawkinds, Matt Ridley. Even Desmond Morris...his early stuff.
 
American said:
Inaugural Address of President John F. Kennedy
Washington, D.C.
January 20, 1961

(Listen to this speech.)




The Left sure has changed 180 degrees. Quite astounding considering that Kennedy is probably thought to be one of the best Democrat presidents.
Click to expand...

So now we have another human being making a god is good, god is great speech - and is the true author of our rights. Meanwhile god is, once again, silent. God is just standing in the background orchestrating his will on humanity, which by the way doesn't appear to be universal. Or at least on our planet. Don't you find that odd?

By the way, god's always been used as a great political tool. If a politician would take his or her cute little puppy dog with him or her on the campaign trail and all his or her speech would have to be, "It's god's will that I come before you and it's god's will that you vote for me. Thank you very much."

Maybe god made those on the "Right" his chosen ones and didn't send the memo out to the left? So all human rights are the results of a divine act, and transmitted via god's will to human beings who wrote the Constitution...and told the framers not to mention that in the Constitution. You know, something like how the bible came to be written by men, but the men said, "hey, I'm just the messenger, god told me to write all of this stuff.

Well, this has some implication as to whether or not humanity has free will. Did Moses forget to bring down another tablet that says, "Okay folks, here's your rights." Or did folks like John Locke plant the seed that god created rights and men just wrote them down as god willed it?
 
NO1 said:
My words was in response to the idea that there are rights that has no social context, rights that no need any recogintion and every person enforce his own right. So I tried to show that in this case these rights has no value.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I would answer that the individual must ASSERT his rights as a situation might demand, and that the purpose of a government, the reason that humans create governments, is to ENFORCE those rights by way of the other human and intangible construct, laws.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I exercise my natural rights every day of my life. They are not a belief system, they are a fact of life.

Just like my right to choose to ignore this attempt to take me down an imaginary trail.
Click to expand...

Do people have the right to walk the streets without fear of being shot?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Thank you.

I would answer that the individual must ASSERT his rights as a situation might demand, and that the purpose of a government, the reason that humans create governments, is to ENFORCE those rights by way of the other human and intangible construct, laws.
Click to expand...
Ok, this individual has a priori rights or he think that he deserve some rights that he lacks and he working to achieve these rights?
 
Moot said:
I didn't say you needed at least two people to have rights. I said you needed two or more to form a contract...but since you're the last person alive that point becomes moot. Don't confuse the state of nature with society. In state of nature you still have the natural right to survive.
Click to expand...
Lets try something alse, imagine that asteroid hits this plant and you are the only survivor, now you reach to your pocket and find 5 doller bill, do you agree this 5 doller bill is meaningless? Do you agree we can say you got no money?
 
OpportunityCost said:
If there are no natural rights, where does the basis for the consent of the governed arise?
Click to expand...

From the same type of social construct known as the US constitution. If we didn't all finally agree on it, we wouldn't have it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom