Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[Oddball]

You've made weak point on top of weak point....Nothing new there.

 

[Foxfyre]

I repeat. The Founders saw unalienable or God-given rights as those that have always existed. Things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those aren't human inventions. They've been around since the beginning of time. They have not been made available to everybody, however, as some people were strong enough to deny them to others.

So they say. That doesn't mean that the founders were correct. Didn't the founders think that women should be prohibited from voting? It seems like the fathers saw no problem with pushing the natives further west as land started to get crowded by European settlers.

So you're saying that it is possible that the Founders were wrong that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not components in the human condition? Could you tell me at what point in history that such concepts did not exist?

The U.S. Constitution was to recognize these as rights that nobody would be able to take away from somebody else without consequence.

Didn't the Constitution at one time say that Blacks counted as less of a person when compared to Whites?

No. The Constitution at one time did not prohibit slavery and did not recognize Blacks as citizens. Most Americans didn't agree with that, but accepted it in order to bring everybody under the Constitution. Then when they decided that each state would be afforded delegates based on state population, the southern states, with large black populations, had a disproportionate advantage. So they counted blacks--non citizens--as three fifths of a person for the purpose of apportionment.

Americans, as Americans do, though has evolved under a banner of liberty and has had many changes of heart over the years. The Founders, should they live in our day and time, to a man would have opposed slavery or denying women the vote etc. as much as all the rest of us do now.

But none of this has any bearing on the basic principle that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not human inventions or laws, but have always existed.

This is an example of the fallacy of appealing to authority. I think that I can come up with some advice and instruction from the Bible that would make even devout Christians think twice about how sound the Bible is.

The Founders did not use the Bible as authority for the Constitution. Nor have I.

There is a difference between concrete verifiable objects and abstract concepts. Some things that have been given names probably don't exist. Do you think that unicorns exist? Do 50000 foot-tall humans exist? Do magical leprechauns exist storing gold at the ends of rainbows?

I suspect given the absence of material evidence or witnesses testifying to their existence, unicorn, giants, and leprechauns don't exist. I am unaware of anybody other than people unschooled in Constitution and a few diehard kool-ade drinking liberals who insist that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't exist though.

The Founders recognized life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in the broadest possible definitions for those things, as something that have always existed independent of human thought, recognition, language, or invention. To them that means that they are products of God.

Yes, the founders had quite an imagination. They also condoned slavery, prohibited women from voting, and had no problem with manifest destiny as an excuse for pushing Indians out of the way. America was made great due to a variety of things. A few things were the fertile land practically taken from Indians and made fruitful from the blood sweat and tears of slaves.

Whatever evils have come from the efforts and vision of humankind, not any part of it changes the fact that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness exist.

Natural rights are as real as are unicorns and leprechauns and the tooth fairy and Santa Clause.

So you are one of those who say that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't exist? Or that they are inventions of somebody and installed as policy?

The Founders recognized that they exist, appreciated them as the means by which humankind could achieve its highest goals, and built a nation around the concept of defending them.

Human kind achieved high goals by various means too. Look at the things made by slave labor.

That is right. Humankind has achieved many magnificent goals through many different means and that included slave labor.

But humankind did not invent life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Hum Dinger]

[But whether you do or do not believe in God or whether you believe they were given by space aliens or monsters from the depths of the Earth, or mutated out of some cosmic event, they exist just the same.

The Founders recognized that they exist, appreciated them as the means by which humankind could achieve its highest goals, and built a nation around the concept of defending them.

That falsely assumes they exist.

They exist. Just as the dollar has value or that there is a difference between justified killing and murder, unalienable rights exist - because almost everyone believes that they do and because our soceity (almost) functions as though they do.

Almost everyone believes in their own unalienable rights - people just don't seem to believe in other peoples unalienable rights.

If we keep electing liberal leaders, maybe in a hundred years or so, people will universal believe in other people's unalienable rights.

Then the human race willl have taken the next setup in social evolution.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Well neither Thomas Jefferson nor any of the other Founding Fathers invented life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. And yes, these existed at the time of the dinosaurs.

Excuse me Mr. tyrannesauris, but you can't eat me becuase I have an unalienable right to life so go eat a turnip instead!

You gotta be kidding!

Did you ever notice that in the Bible, the God of the Old Testament, seems to have a very different philosophy that the God of the new Testament?

How many people did Jesus kill? How many did Moses and the Isrealites kill?

Could it be that the Bible is just a history of the moral evolution of a people?

That the moral philosophy of the Bible changes drastically?

Or does God have a split personality? One day did He just decide that He had been wrong about everthing and change His attitude? Not very God-like.

Yes I do believe that the writers of the Old Testament had a different understanding of God than did the writers of the New Testament. But that has zero impact on the Constitution as to unalienable rights.

Jesus didn't kill anybody so far as we know, but that doesn't have any bearing on the point here so I don't know why it should matter. However many that Moses or the Israelites killed is also irrelevent so I'm not going to look that up. I'm pretty sure that many billions of people have been killed since humans have been walking on this Earth, and not a single one of us is not going to die at some time or another. How that happens is irrelevent to the point also.

What difference does it make whether the Bible is a history of whatever or what its moral philosophy has been at any point as it relates to the topic of unalienable rights? The Founders didn't use the Bible to make their case. Nor have I.

I believe at some time I have read most if not all documents related to the Founders' discussions, debates, opinions, and deliberations related to the Constitution, and I don't recall that the attributes of God factored into those in any way. So we can get past that quite handily.

So if you like, you can remove Jesus, God, Moses, the Israelites, and the Bible from the equation entirely.

And you are still left with the reality that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness exist.

The inclusion of the Religious background of the founding Fathers is entirely relavant to this discussion:

The Declaration of Independance says:

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

Who did they mean by "Their Creator"...their Mothers and Fathers? I don't think so.

From the point of view that morality is a product of human social evolution, not some sort of mystical state, the philosophical relationship between the founding fathers and their religion is definitely pertinent.

 

[Oddball]

Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

Getting back to the original question, the answer appears to be a big "NO".

Seems that if the Jacobin mob can't lay authoritative claim to the rights of free men, to dispense them as they see fit, they'll take the tack that such rights don't even exist to begin with.

In their world, the concept of "ethics" is purely situational.

 

[mattskramer]

You've made weak point on top of weak point....Nothing new there.

Irrelevant

 

[mattskramer]

Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

Getting back to the original question, the answer appears to be a big "NO".

Seems that if the Jacobin mob can't lay authoritative claim to the rights of free men, to dispense them as they see fit, they'll take the tack that such rights don't even exist to begin with.

In their world, the concept of "ethics" is purely situational.

The question assumes facts not in evidence. It is as if I were to ask you, when did you stop beating your wife?

 

[Oddball]

The fact is that the mob will always claim the power do do as it pleases, no matter whom they trample....Something that fifth columnists like you have demonstrated in spades on this thread.

So the answer to the original question is a foregone conclusion.

 

[Hum Dinger]

"The fact is that the mob will always claim the power do do as it pleases, no matter whom they trample".

If by mob you mean independant thinking people who use democracy as a mechanism to limit your freedom to conform to civilized standards, then you're wrong.

If you mean a large number of people formed into a social-economic hierarchy that will act against all morals and principals for their own personal gains or just in conformance to the hierarchy, you're correct.

You above all people really shouldn't be refering to 'the mob', because of all the people on USMB, you proliferate the philosophy of a mobster.

People like you just fail to recognise two basic principals:

No freedom is an unlimited freedom.

and

With every freedom inately comes responsibilities.

Sorry if we don't allow you unlimited freedom with no responsibilities.

 

[mattskramer]

So you're saying that it is possible that the Founders were wrong that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not components in the human condition? Could you tell me at what point in history that such concepts did not exist?

People prefer life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I say that such things are not necessarily natural rights. They are things that people think that people should have - though there have been instances in which people, even the founding fathers, didn't believe so or did not act on such beliefs.

The Constitution at one time...did not recognize Blacks as whole persons but as 3/5 of whole persons.

Read my statements more carefully. I said that the Constitution considered a Black man as less than a whole person.

"The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution: 'Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.'

I suspect given the absence of material evidence or witnesses testifying to their existence, unicorn, giants, and leprechauns don't exist. I am unaware of anybody other than people unschooled in Constitution and a few diehard kool-ade drinking liberals who insist that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't exist though.

You resort to fallacy of appealing to authority (Founding Fathers) as if what they say must have been the truth. I say that they were ordinary human beings subject to guess work, speculation, or hypocrisy. Thomas Jefferson owned a slave.

Now you are resorting to be the fallacy or appealing to popularity. Just because something is popular, it does not follow that it is real.

Whatever evils have come from the efforts and vision of humankind, not any part of it changes the fact that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness exist.

Again, I am not saying that they don't exist. Terms such as hate, death, and slavery exist. I contend that "natural rights" don't exist. The "right"to life, liberty, and happiness is a human invention. Does this right to liberty include my right to be free to engage in prostitution with a consenting adult?

So you are one of those who say that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't exist? Or that they are inventions of somebody and installed as policy?

I am saying that "Natural Rights" to (fill in the blank) is a human invention.

 

[Intense]

I repeat. The Founders saw unalienable or God-given rights as those that have always existed. Things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those aren't human inventions. They've been around since the beginning of time. They have not been made available to everybody, however, as some people were strong enough to deny them to others.

The U.S. Constitution was to recognize these as rights that nobody would be able to take away from somebody else without consequence.

To me that is pretty simple.

Bulls Eye, but you know that. The distinction between a Just and an Unjust Society. What a ride it's been.

 

[Intense]

I repeat. The Founders saw unalienable or God-given rights as those that have always existed. Things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those aren't human inventions. They've been around since the beginning of time. They have not been made available to everybody, however, as some people were strong enough to deny them to others.

The U.S. Constitution was to recognize these as rights that nobody would be able to take away from somebody else without consequence.

To me that is pretty simple.

Not so simple:

The founders were all Christians, they also stated the unalienable rights were God given.

Then why didn't Jesus ever mention these unalienable rights? Why didn't the scriptures metion 'Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness'?

The pinciples laid out in the declaration of independance were the product of new and evolutionary thinking - they did not exist, even hypothetically, until the day that the declaration of Independance was written.

Morality is ever evolving as the human conscience evolves.

The principles were copied from John Locke

Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.

It is the duty of the civil magistrate, by the impartial execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people in general and to every one of his subjects in particular the just possession of these things belonging to this life. If anyone presume to violate the laws of public justice and equity, established for the preservation of those things, his presumption is to be checked by the fear of punishment, consisting of the deprivation or diminution of those civil interests, or goods, which otherwise he might and ought to enjoy. But seeing no man does willingly suffer himself to be punished by the deprivation of any part of his goods, and much less of his liberty or life, therefore, is the magistrate armed with the force and strength of all his subjects, in order to the punishment of those that violate any other man's rights.

Now that the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to these civil concernments, and that all civil power, right and dominion, is bounded and confined to the only care of promoting these things; and that it neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls, these following considerations seem unto me abundantly to demonstrate.




John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

 

[Intense]

Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

Getting back to the original question, the answer appears to be a big "NO".

Seems that if the Jacobin mob can't lay authoritative claim to the rights of free men, to dispense them as they see fit, they'll take the tack that such rights don't even exist to begin with.

In their world, the concept of "ethics" is purely situational.

Thank God We are a Constitutional Republic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

Getting back to the original question, the answer appears to be a big "NO".

Seems that if the Jacobin mob can't lay authoritative claim to the rights of free men, to dispense them as they see fit, they'll take the tack that such rights don't even exist to begin with.

In their world, the concept of "ethics" is purely situational.

Correct.

Or boiling it down to the simplest equation, the Founders designed the Constitution to protect unalienable rights from being taken away by a rogue President, by Congress, by courts, by committee, by individual, and certainly by majority vote of any body.

The only way that any of these can infringe on our unalienable rights is by violating the Constitution itself.

 

[Foxfyre]

Excuse me Mr. tyrannesauris, but you can't eat me becuase I have an unalienable right to life so go eat a turnip instead!

You gotta be kidding!

Did you ever notice that in the Bible, the God of the Old Testament, seems to have a very different philosophy that the God of the new Testament?

How many people did Jesus kill? How many did Moses and the Isrealites kill?

Could it be that the Bible is just a history of the moral evolution of a people?

That the moral philosophy of the Bible changes drastically?

Or does God have a split personality? One day did He just decide that He had been wrong about everthing and change His attitude? Not very God-like.

Yes I do believe that the writers of the Old Testament had a different understanding of God than did the writers of the New Testament. But that has zero impact on the Constitution as to unalienable rights.

Jesus didn't kill anybody so far as we know, but that doesn't have any bearing on the point here so I don't know why it should matter. However many that Moses or the Israelites killed is also irrelevent so I'm not going to look that up. I'm pretty sure that many billions of people have been killed since humans have been walking on this Earth, and not a single one of us is not going to die at some time or another. How that happens is irrelevent to the point also.

What difference does it make whether the Bible is a history of whatever or what its moral philosophy has been at any point as it relates to the topic of unalienable rights? The Founders didn't use the Bible to make their case. Nor have I.

I believe at some time I have read most if not all documents related to the Founders' discussions, debates, opinions, and deliberations related to the Constitution, and I don't recall that the attributes of God factored into those in any way. So we can get past that quite handily.

So if you like, you can remove Jesus, God, Moses, the Israelites, and the Bible from the equation entirely.

And you are still left with the reality that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness exist.

The inclusion of the Religious background of the founding Fathers is entirely relavant to this discussion:

The Declaration of Independance says:

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

Who did they mean by "Their Creator"...their Mothers and Fathers? I don't think so.

From the point of view that morality is a product of human social evolution, not some sort of mystical state, the philosophical relationship between the founding fathers and their religion is definitely pertinent.

The religious background is only relevent because the Founders themselves believed the source of unalienable rights to be from God. A God they did not presume to identify or assign to any doctrine or creed. It was their way of understanding and explaining that such rights have always existed and are outside the moral prerogative of people to change.

The opening phrases of the Declaration:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

For the deists, agnostics, and Atheists among them, it was fine for them to translate "God" into whatever concept of the universe and eternity worked for them.

But they, to a man, agreed that the rights themselves were not the creation of humankind nor could they be morally violated by humankind. They were not required to be religious men in order to sign the Declaration nor the Constitution.

And the fact that we see human imperfection in the respect for and execution of those rights at every stage of history in no way negates the basic principle of the concept itself.

 

[Oddball]

Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

Getting back to the original question, the answer appears to be a big "NO".

Seems that if the Jacobin mob can't lay authoritative claim to the rights of free men, to dispense them as they see fit, they'll take the tack that such rights don't even exist to begin with.

In their world, the concept of "ethics" is purely situational.

The question assumes facts not in evidence. It is as if I were to ask you, when did you stop beating your wife?

The fact in evidence is that there are no "rights", per se, when the mob has sway on what they are or aren't. All there are privileges bestowed upon the minority, which are determined by the caprice of the majority.

Therefore, the very concept of rights within a democracy are mutually exclusive.

 

[Intense]

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at one no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation on conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents on injustice. - Thoreau


Henry David Thoreau: On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

 

[Hum Dinger]

Yes I do believe that the writers of the Old Testament had a different understanding of God than did the writers of the New Testament. But that has zero impact on the Constitution as to unalienable rights.

Jesus didn't kill anybody so far as we know, but that doesn't have any bearing on the point here so I don't know why it should matter. However many that Moses or the Israelites killed is also irrelevent so I'm not going to look that up. I'm pretty sure that many billions of people have been killed since humans have been walking on this Earth, and not a single one of us is not going to die at some time or another. How that happens is irrelevent to the point also.

What difference does it make whether the Bible is a history of whatever or what its moral philosophy has been at any point as it relates to the topic of unalienable rights? The Founders didn't use the Bible to make their case. Nor have I.

I believe at some time I have read most if not all documents related to the Founders' discussions, debates, opinions, and deliberations related to the Constitution, and I don't recall that the attributes of God factored into those in any way. So we can get past that quite handily.

So if you like, you can remove Jesus, God, Moses, the Israelites, and the Bible from the equation entirely.

And you are still left with the reality that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness exist.

The inclusion of the Religious background of the founding Fathers is entirely relavant to this discussion:

The Declaration of Independance says:

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

Who did they mean by "Their Creator"...their Mothers and Fathers? I don't think so.

From the point of view that morality is a product of human social evolution, not some sort of mystical state, the philosophical relationship between the founding fathers and their religion is definitely pertinent.

The religious background is only relevent because the Founders themselves believed the source of unalienable rights to be from God. A God they did not presume to identify or assign to any doctrine or creed. It was their way of understanding and explaining that such rights have always existed and are outside the moral prerogative of people to change.

The opening phrases of the Declaration:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

For the deists, agnostics, and Atheists among them, it was fine for them to translate "God" into whatever concept of the universe and eternity worked for them.

But they, to a man, agreed that the rights themselves were not the creation of humankind nor could they be morally violated by humankind. They were not required to be religious men in order to sign the Declaration nor the Constitution.

And the fact that we see human imperfection in the respect for and execution of those rights at every stage of history in no way negates the basic principle of the concept itself.

Yet the U.S. Constitution begins by saying "We the People....do ordain...", indicating that the protections of the Constitution are rooted in the dignity of the people, not in any God or Creator, while the Declaration of Independance says that the unalienable rights come form the 'Creator'.

The two documents are in contradiction as to the fundamental basis for the rights that they profess.

The Constitution is the law of the land. The Declaration is just a philosophical guidance. So any rights that we possess are by the will of the people who ordain such, not due to any diety or natural law.

 

[JBeukema]

I have a way of defining good and evil:

In order to make primitive tribes (and modern soceities) more adaptable, nature gives us different personality types

Nature is not a sentient thing that acts with any purpose.

 

[JBeukema]

Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

Getting back to the original question, the answer appears to be a big "NO".

So the FF founded a system incompatible with the rights they were trying to protect?

What works then?

Oh yeah, I remember now- an aristocracy

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...-citizens-were-people-who-owned-property.html

You and your 'landed gentry' can all go fuck yourselves