Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[JBeukema]

I spit on a democratic government but a republic.

:eusa_what:

democratic republic like ours is really a limited democracy

Weren't you just going on about America not being a democracy and attacking me for pointing out that it is?

 

[The T]

As I said above, certain rights are critical in the establishment of a civilized society. However, there is no reason why those rights are "natural." They're just "right," or "the best."

There is nothing stopping mankind from brutalizing one another and taking what we need, rights be damned, as we have for most of our existence. Ideals of rights are codified rules from which the law derives, derived from a consensus of society.

Yes, there is a reason: Aggression.

The very idea of self-preservation presumes that someone or something may act as an aggressor against that end. Therefore, we are all within our right to protect and preserve ourselves. The only function for "society" (such as it may be) in this particular area, is to help provide a collective framework to accomplish that which would not be outside of one's right to do individually.

To use that form of collectivized preservationist aggression as the aggressor itself is the absolute antithesis of that just and clearly defined use of force.

The entire Declaration of Independence provided concepts and deeply held beliefs that would subsequently be affirmed and supported by the U.S. Constitution. And the core belief of all is that the American people would hold up certain rights as unalienable and would have the right to defend those rights against all individuals, groups, or governments who would presume to take any away. And that would include our own government.

There it is. Basic American History we all should know and understand as citizens whom are expected to preserve the legacy.

 

[boedicca]

You don't have to agree that 'natural rights' exist at all. You merely have to come to an agreement regarding the basic liberties and [positive] rights must be protected. Even when dressed up in the rhetoric of 'natural rights', this is the process that occurs and it is motivated by self-interest.

Your assertion of positive rights is in direct conflict with the negative/natural rights.

What you propose is rule by the Mob. Without presupposed fundamental, immutable values, the thugs may assert power and destroy the rights of others.

 

[ihopehefails]

I agree. And it is why we must live as a nation under the rule of law. The law is strengthened when the foundation of law derives from deeply held beliefs about rights, no matter where those rights come from.

Precisely. You don't have to agree with the origin of the rights--the Founders didn't all agree--but in the American experiment the people all agreed on what the rights were and accepted the definition of natural rights as the foundation for all. And they ratified a Constitution that would defend those rights and assign to government the sole purpose of securing, defending, and protecting those rights.

You don't have to agree that 'natural rights' exist at all. You merely have to come to an agreement regarding the basic liberties and [positive] rights must be protected. Even when dressed up in the rhetoric of 'natural rights', this is the process that occurs and it is motivated by self-interest.

What if we agree that the natural right to live shouldn't be protected?

This is why the individual and their God-given, inalieanable, and natural rights rules over the majority because if the majority were to agree not to protect those rights then we would not have a free society where individuals choose what they do over their own lives.

 

[The T]

the core belief of all is that the American people would hold up certain rights as unalienable

So they decided to declare them so?

and would have the right...

So they granted rights to those who came after them after they determined which rights to grant/recognize?

So much for your 'natural rights'- you've just described the social contract.

And what IS the Constitution but a *Contract* between the Government -AND- The Governed?

And can you explain WHY the Government violates it when ever they get the chance? Or will you be one of the ones defending them?

So far? Your record is clear by your comments. And YOU aren't on the side of the governed.

 

[ihopehefails]

the core belief of all is that the American people would hold up certain rights as unalienable

So they decided to declare them so?

and would have the right...

So they granted rights to those who came after them after they determined which rights to grant/recognize?

So much for your 'natural rights'- you've just described the social contract.

Yes, anyone can declare any right they want for themselves and are garanteed that right will not be violated by someone else. This protects that person from being murdered because they declared they have a right to live and anything they declare can never come in conflict with someone elses natural right for the same reason their own rights can't be violated.

 

[JBeukema]

You don't have to agree that 'natural rights' exist at all. You merely have to come to an agreement regarding the basic liberties and [positive] rights must be protected. Even when dressed up in the rhetoric of 'natural rights', this is the process that occurs and it is motivated by self-interest.

Your assertion of positive rights is in direct conflict with the negative/natural rights.

What you propose is rule by the Mob. Without presupposed fundamental, immutable values, the thugs may assert power and destroy the rights of others.

Fox already pointed out that the FF made up the list of rights after deciding what rights they deemed important. You even thanked him for it.

If the rights did exist, it would change nothing as people's liberties can be infringed either way. 'Natural Rights' is nothing but poetic yet meaningless rhetoric. People don't refrain from murder because some 'natural right' exists and nature prevents them from killing, they abstain from murder out of either their own moral qualms or the social contract that leads to legal or other (eg: you kill me brother, my whole family will kill you) ramifications if they kill someone.

 

[ihopehefails]

the core belief of all is that the American people would hold up certain rights as unalienable

So they decided to declare them so?

and would have the right...

So they granted rights to those who came after them after they determined which rights to grant/recognize?

So much for your 'natural rights'- you've just described the social contract.

And what IS the Constitution but a *Contract* between the Government -AND- The Governed?

And can you explain WHY the Government violates it when ever they get the chance? Or will you be one of the ones defending them?

So far? Your record is clear by your comments. And YOU aren't on the side of the governed.

How true. Everytime the government goes outside its own powers it is violating the protections we have established for our individual selves in the same way the government would violated our right of free speech when if violates the first amendment.

 

[boedicca]

You don't have to agree that 'natural rights' exist at all. You merely have to come to an agreement regarding the basic liberties and [positive] rights must be protected. Even when dressed up in the rhetoric of 'natural rights', this is the process that occurs and it is motivated by self-interest.

Your assertion of positive rights is in direct conflict with the negative/natural rights.

What you propose is rule by the Mob. Without presupposed fundamental, immutable values, the thugs may assert power and destroy the rights of others.

Fox already pointed out that the FF made up the list of rights after deciding what rights they deemed important. You even thanked him for it.

If the rights did exist, it would change nothing as people's liberties can be infringed either way. 'Natural Rights' is nothing but poetic yet meaningless rhetoric. People don't refrain from murder because some 'natural right' exists and nature prevents them from killing, they abstain from murder out of either their own moral qualms or the social contract that leads to legal or other (eg: you kill me brother, my whole family will kill you) ramifications if they kill someone.

Natural rights are only meaningless to people who wish to destroy them.

The fact that others may violate them doesn't mean they don't exist. Our system of government recognized the existence of natural rights, and set up protections for them. That doesn't mean that ill intentioned people will not seek to harm others.

 

[JBeukema]

What if we agree that the natural right to live shouldn't be protected?

You mean if we didn't agree to not kill eachother? We'd form no union and make things unpleasant. People do this all the time when the declare war on eachother.

If we seek to form a society and work for a more enjoyable state, the first agreement we inevitably make (usually without needing to codify it) is to not kill eachother.

This is why the individual and their God-given

Demonstrate that your God exists and gives anything

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, anyone can declare any right they want for themselves and are garanteed that right will not be violated by someone else.

O Rly?

So no laws exist?

This protects that person from being murdered because they declared they have a right to live

And I can declare the right to kill them. It's a wash.

and anything they declare can never come in conflict with someone elses natural right

I'm older. I declared my right to kill you before you ever declared a right to live. I win.


Care to try again?

 

[The T]

the core belief of all is that the American people would hold up certain rights as unalienable

So they decided to declare them so?

and would have the right...

So they granted rights to those who came after them after they determined which rights to grant/recognize?

So much for your 'natural rights'- you've just described the social contract.

Yes, anyone can declare any right they want for themselves and are garanteed that right will not be violated by someone else. This protects that person from being murdered because they declared they have a right to live and anything they declare can never come in conflict with someone elses natural right for the same reason their own rights can't be violated.

The true essence of Liberty is to do what you will as long as there is no infringement upon others and their free exercise of thier Liberty.

Which pretty much means you have the right to do as you will that LAW doesn't prohibit (For whatever reason).

Too many claim rights...and oddly enough when there is a LAW, or proposed law to regulate or ban such activity, [exercise of liberty of that individual].

I think as well too many confuse the two terms. What are rights but Liberties that aren't enumerated or legislated?

 

[ihopehefails]

You don't have to agree that 'natural rights' exist at all. You merely have to come to an agreement regarding the basic liberties and [positive] rights must be protected. Even when dressed up in the rhetoric of 'natural rights', this is the process that occurs and it is motivated by self-interest.

Your assertion of positive rights is in direct conflict with the negative/natural rights.

What you propose is rule by the Mob. Without presupposed fundamental, immutable values, the thugs may assert power and destroy the rights of others.

Fox already pointed out that the FF made up the list of rights after deciding what rights they deemed important. You even thanked him for it.

If the rights did exist, it would change nothing as people's liberties can be infringed either way. 'Natural Rights' is nothing but poetic yet meaningless rhetoric. People don't refrain from murder because some 'natural right' exists and nature prevents them from killing, they abstain from murder out of either their own moral qualms or the social contract that leads to legal or other (eg: you kill me brother, my whole family will kill you) ramifications if they kill someone.

Legal law has not prevented any murders either so is that just a 'poetic yet meaningless rhetoric'?

A natural right doesn't mean biological limitations such as having to urinate two or three times a day. Mother nature ensures that I do this but nature can have another meaning as in something in their natural setting like a care salesmen selling cars is more natural to him than a car salesmen selling fishing poles. Man in his natural setting is free because he isn't being forced to do things against his free will.

 

[JBeukema]

And what IS the Constitution but a *Contract* between the Government -AND- The Governed?

Fail.

It's a contract among the People themselves- a contract which forms the basis of and contains the rules for our system of governance. The government is a product of, not a party to, the social contract.

The government is not some mythical entity.

And can you explain WHY the Government violates it when ever they get the chance? Or will you be one of the ones defending them?

'The government' does nothing. The people who serve in elected or appointed positions do things. It is the people in the government who act and it is the People who elect representatives who, through their continued elections of the same party and lack of a demand to replace those appointed show their approval.

 

[The T]

And what IS the Constitution but a *Contract* between the Government -AND- The Governed?

Fail.

It's a contract among the People themselves- a contract which forms the basis of and contains the rules for our system of governance. The government is a product of, not a party to, the social contract.

The government is not some mythical entity.

And can you explain WHY the Government violates it when ever they get the chance? Or will you be one of the ones defending them?

'The government' does nothing. The people who serve in elected or appointed positions do things. It is the people in the government who act and it is the People who elect representatives who, through their continued elections of the same party and lack of a demand to replace those appointed show their approval.

Fail? Really? Then what was the Constitutional Convention about? The Federalist/Anti-Federalist argument?

No...YOU fail History.

 

[JBeukema]

Legal law has not prevented any murders either

Oh? You insist that nobody has every considered the legal ramifications of their actions when deciding not to act on their desire to kill someone? That's a fine argument for doing away with the law altogether (aside from being bullshit). Do you regularly espouse anarchy?

nature can have another meaning as in something in their natural setting like a care salesmen selling cars is more natural to him than a car salesmen selling fishing poles.

Fail. He is a car salesman because he sells cars.

Man in his natural setting is free because he isn't being forced to do things against his free will.

O Rly?

So before complex societies were formed, no man was ever accosted or exploited?

You need to look again at nature. The Natural State is hell, not some magical Eden. That's why Man forms societies in the first place.

 

[JBeukema]

Fail? Really? Then what was the Constitutional Convention about? The Federalist/Anti-Federalist argument?

Debates regarding the details of the social contract they were to codify and the nature of the government they were to form.

Are you really that dense?

 

[ihopehefails]

What if we agree that the natural right to live shouldn't be protected?

You mean if we didn't agree to not kill eachother? We'd form no union and make things unpleasant. People do this all the time when the declare war on eachother.

If we seek to form a society and work for a more enjoyable state, the first agreement we inevitably make (usually without needing to codify it) is to not kill eachother.

This is why the individual and their God-given

Demonstrate that your God exists and gives anything

Demonstrate you have the right to take away anything I have without the use of any force either by the government or by brutalizing me?

 

[JBeukema]

You insist natural right exist and then demand someone else demonstrate they exist?

Are you retarded?

 

[The T]

Fail? Really? Then what was the Constitutional Convention about? The Federalist/Anti-Federalist argument?

Debates regarding the details of the social contract they were to codify and the nature of the government they were to form.

Are you really that dense?

I stand by what I said no matter your twisting of the words. You still fail. The only dense one would be you.