Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[Intense]

you're an idiot.

If a state denies a supposed inalienable right, that does not mean one surrendered it. The concept you speak of---inalienable rights---concerns supposed rights one cannot forfeit. A state denying one a right is not equal to giving up that right.

The signers of out national documents thought democracy was compatible with the concept you speak of, and they were all more versed in the concept and more learned men than you.

We have an indirect say through our representatives and freedom of speech, which is Constitutionally protected, even sometimes in spite of the easily swayed angry mob. Even time and due process effect reason and fair play.

I agree, but my faith in man is not blind to the possibilities. If man ceases to exist I think it will be by his own hand. Our struggle to survive is strong, but our emotions may kill us.

I am not an alarmist. I am also not naive. I think the founders were wise beyond their years and their time. I am convinced they fought off their urges and nature when they struggled to provide a foundation for the nation. After each of the documents they left us were signed Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution...), they reverted back to their natures, which wasn't pretty.

do we have men like them now, profiles in courage who can lead and persuade? do we have leaders amongst us who would do what men did during the Constitutional Convention? They put aside their differences, even as they conspired to do what was right and good, and without the proper authority. They were brave men, but also well respected men.

Our downfall if it comes, will come out of a lack of respect, for diversity, differences and commonality---for shared goals.

I have tried for years to get others to believe that opponents are not enemies. It is a difficult sell.

Christianity would teach that we can survive in spite of ourselves.

 

[Intense]

We have rules that Govern.

We have the People who govern

Some made and changed by simple majorities, some by super majorities

Majority rules?

. We have a Constitutional process. We are a Constitutional Republic.

A particular form of government that falls under the democratic type.

The republic is the breed, representative democracy if the species, and democracy is the genus or order

The rule of law dictates, people both comply and ignore it. Justice prevails in the end.

Are we democratic? Yes, as a part of a larger process. We are a Constitutional Republic, big R in Republic, little d in democratic.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net



The republic is the breed, representative democracy if the species, and democracy is the genus or order

Federalist the species, Republic or Democratic Republic the breed, Constitution the order.

 

[Intense]

The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution.

You cannot fully understand the matter unless you read also the Anti-Federalist Papers.

The Right, which (supposedly) abhors the concentration of power, would do well to remember the antifederalists.

Been there, done that. Anti-Federalist Papers

Hamilton didn't fool everybody.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

I've noticed that as well. JKB seems to like to point out non-points of the post in order to discredit the entire concept like if you mentioned the color red he would say some nonsense red isn't red in order to win. He doesn't make any sense.

 

[ihopehefails]

If you mean that people commit crimes--violate the rights of others--and get away with it, you would be right. That is precisely why the Founders, to a man, agreed that the Constitution would not work for other than a moral people. But so long as the large majority of the people accept the consequence of unalienable rights, the ones who violate those rights and get away with it will be fairly rare. The law is necessary within the social contract to define what consequences will be imposed for violating the rights of others.

It is important in the interest of preserving freedom that includes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to understand what an unalienable right is no matter where it came from. And then it is important to promote laws that promote those rights.

On the proverbial mark.

Oh well. We agree to disagree. I still contend that "rights"is a human invention and that they don't exist in and of themselves outside of imagination. There is even debate about what rights people have. You often speak of liberty. I'll ask again, should people be free to engage in prostitution, smoking marijuana, and gambling? Should people be allowed to consume alcohol and smoke cigarettes? Where do you draw the line - and why?

In order to have the maximum freedom you have to draw the line at where your actions violates the free will and rights of another. In my opinion, I can smoke pot all I want but I can't make another person participate in that activity themselves. This way I am prevented from interfering with the liberty of someone else.

Now if we think rights are merely social agreements that only exist as long as the collective says we can then the collective can now infringe on the freedom of anyone within it. This is why when we say rights are not a God-given, party of your humanity, or natural we allow others to usurp whatever rights we have.

Do you think we have the right to speak freely? What if society said that we couldn't? This is how vulnerable we leave ourselves when we think outwardly about our rights instead of inwardly.

 

[ihopehefails]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

I'll be ready to reply to your Op when you name even one "natural right".

Humanoids are under no warranty; we receive no guarantees from The Universe that I am aware of.

The same humanoid is also not owned by anything else and has no instructions that it has to obey another person, agree about what actions they are to take, and neither justify why their freedoms exist. Unless you can show me otherwise.

Man is in his natural state when he is not restricted or in judgment of anyone else. In this state he can do whatever he wants such as speaking freely. Each person is in this state and, if we could maintain this state, we would not need government hence governments are instituted among men to protect these natural rights that his creator endowed with him. If he did not have any of these rights in his natural state then it he would not be capable of being free in this state but this state, be definition, is the state of no restriction placed upon him by others.

 

[Foxfyre]

In order to have the maximum freedom you have to draw the line at where your actions violates the free will and rights of another. In my opinion, I can smoke pot all I want but I can't make another person participate in that activity themselves. This way I am prevented from interfering with the liberty of someone else.

Now if we think rights are merely social agreements that only exist as long as the collective says we can then the collective can now infringe on the freedom of anyone within it. This is why when we say rights are not a God-given, party of your humanity, or natural we allow others to usurp whatever rights we have.

Do you think we have the right to speak freely? What if society said that we couldn't? This is how vulnerable we leave ourselves when we think outwardly about our rights instead of inwardly.

That's it. The Founders intended that each of us live our lives in peace and as we choose to live it so long as our behavior and/or actions do not infringe on or prevent anybody else from enjoying his/her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as he/she chooses.

I do understand where Mattskrammer is coming from, but I think our differences might be more of semantics or in understanding of the philosophical principle.

The Founders did not believe unalienable rights to be something that could be conferred. How could I figure out what constituted 'pursuit of happiness' for Matt for instance and write all the components of that into any law?

Instead they saw unalienable rights as being a reality or state of being. Language could only define or describe the principle. It could neither enumerate them nor confer them.

But whether we go with his concept that rights are a human invention, or we go with the Founders' concept that rights are recognized, not conferred, the intent of the Constitution was to protect and defend those rights from all, including our own government, who would presume to take them from us.

 

[ihopehefails]

How do I prove that God exists to a non believer?

The same way you prove Bigfoot, the atom, or the Kepler Belt exists: evidence.

Why need I prove God exists to a nonbeliever?

You people keep insisting your 'natural rights' come from god. Nothing can be granted by a non-existent thing.


Prove your god exists and you'll be 1/3 the way proving you have god-given rights

Show the source of right action, morality, ethics, without an authority higher than ourselves.

Clarify

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

. Yet the nonbelievers are still outnumbered

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder if I have to prove that any belief centered around the existence of God to you or to anyone else in order to have the right to retain that belief for myself. Are you going to stand in front of a church door on sunday and demand sufficient proof before the practitioners can enter and practice their religious beliefs as they want? That would violate the freedom of religion wouldn't it.

Since you can't deny to anyone the right to believe something based on their own spirituality then you can't deny them the right to believe that their rights come from what they believe created them.

Have you noticed that in the declaration of independence that it says that rights are granted by their creator. It did not mention a specific being. It just said whatever thing you happen to believe created you gave you those rights. A person who believes that God created the universe believes that that thing also gave them their rights. A person who believes that the universe was an act of nature must believe that those rights come from nature as well.

 

[ihopehefails]

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

By what authority do you speak for nature?

You're claiming that 'nature' is a sentient being?

You've any evidence to support your idiotic assertion?

No but lets assume that we are saying we get our rights from objects in nature like a tree. I happen to think we do not get our rights from a tree, rocks, earth, or any celestrial object because that would be stupid but have you realized that man is also an object in nature since the same matter that make up the trees, rocks, earth, or any other celestrial object also composes our bodies. You have already said that God doesn't exist so we can't have any spiritual matter with us so we are also 100 percent natural object.

If we do not get our rights from any natural object then why do we get our rights from other people who happen to be just as natural as a tree, a rock, earth, and any other celestrial object? What is your explanation for this?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We have an indirect say through our representatives and freedom of speech, which is Constitutionally protected, even sometimes in spite of the easily swayed angry mob. Even time and due process effect reason and fair play.

I agree, but my faith in man is not blind to the possibilities. If man ceases to exist I think it will be by his own hand. Our struggle to survive is strong, but our emotions may kill us.

I am not an alarmist. I am also not naive. I think the founders were wise beyond their years and their time. I am convinced they fought off their urges and nature when they struggled to provide a foundation for the nation. After each of the documents they left us were signed Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution...), they reverted back to their natures, which wasn't pretty.

do we have men like them now, profiles in courage who can lead and persuade? do we have leaders amongst us who would do what men did during the Constitutional Convention? They put aside their differences, even as they conspired to do what was right and good, and without the proper authority. They were brave men, but also well respected men.

Our downfall if it comes, will come out of a lack of respect, for diversity, differences and commonality---for shared goals.

I have tried for years to get others to believe that opponents are not enemies. It is a difficult sell.

Christianity would teach that we can survive in spite of ourselves.

Christianity teaches no such thing, unless one calls dying, and hoping to rise up from the dead and go flying out to some imaginary heavens---surviving.

 

[ihopehefails]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

you're an idiot.

If a state denies a supposed inalienable right, that does not mean one surrendered it. The concept you speak of---inalienable rights---concerns supposed rights one cannot forfeit. A state denying one a right is not equal to giving up that right.

The signers of out national documents thought democracy was compatible with the concept you speak of, and they were all more versed in the concept and more learned men than you.

Why don't you show me somewhere where they said democracy was really great? You said that the signers thought democracy was compatable with natural rights. Where are the written statements that show that?

However, I can find a ton of references to a republic witch is a constitutional government. It even says that the federal government shall garantee to each state a republic form of government. They did not say the word democracy and perhaps you think those are the same thing but they are not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We have rules that Govern.

We have the People who govern


Majority rules?

. We have a Constitutional process. We are a Constitutional Republic.

A particular form of government that falls under the democratic type.

The republic is the breed, representative democracy if the species, and democracy is the genus or order

The rule of law dictates, people both comply and ignore it. Justice prevails in the end.

Are we democratic? Yes, as a part of a larger process. We are a Constitutional Republic, big R in Republic, little d in democratic.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net



The republic is the breed, representative democracy if the species, and democracy is the genus or order

Federalist the species, Republic or Democratic Republic the breed, Constitution the order.

Being a Republic, America has a representative form of government.
We use a form of democracy in our elections...representative democracy. Representative democracies are types of Republics. We are a Constitutional Republic as opposed to a Constitutional Monarchy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution.

You cannot fully understand the matter unless you read also the Anti-Federalist Papers.

The Right, which (supposedly) abhors the concentration of power, would do well to remember the antifederalists.

Been there, done that. Anti-Federalist Papers

Hamilton didn't fool everybody.

The Anti Federalists like the Confederacy, lost. It may be important to look at what they had to say, but they lost. The Anti Federalists, lost.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

you're an idiot.

If a state denies a supposed inalienable right, that does not mean one surrendered it. The concept you speak of---inalienable rights---concerns supposed rights one cannot forfeit. A state denying one a right is not equal to giving up that right.

The signers of out national documents thought democracy was compatible with the concept you speak of, and they were all more versed in the concept and more learned men than you.

Why don't you show me somewhere where they said democracy was really great? You said that the signers thought democracy was compatable with natural rights. Where are the written statements that show that?

However, I can find a ton of references to a republic witch is a constitutional government. It even says that the federal government shall garantee to each state a republic form of government. They did not say the word democracy and perhaps you think those are the same thing but they are not.

you may do well to look up 'representative democracy'

 

[JBeukema]

Are we democratic? Yes, as a part of a larger process. We are a Constitutional Republic, big R in Republic, little d in democratic.

As I've been saying this entire time.

The republic is the breed, representative democracy if the species, and democracy is the genus or order

Federalist the species, Republic or Democratic Republic the breed, Constitution the order.

We've agreed on the reality; I'll not argue you the metaphor

 

[JBeukema]

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.

I've noticed that as well. JKB seems to like to point out non-points of the post in order to discredit the entire concept like if you mentioned the color red he would say some nonsense red isn't red in order to win. He doesn't make any sense.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...hor-baby-provisions-are-unconstitutional.html

I'll give your opinion all the merit it warrants

 

[JBeukema]

lets assume that we are saying we get our rights from objects in nature like a tree.

I stopped reading there

 

[Intense]

I agree, but my faith in man is not blind to the possibilities. If man ceases to exist I think it will be by his own hand. Our struggle to survive is strong, but our emotions may kill us.

I am not an alarmist. I am also not naive. I think the founders were wise beyond their years and their time. I am convinced they fought off their urges and nature when they struggled to provide a foundation for the nation. After each of the documents they left us were signed Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution...), they reverted back to their natures, which wasn't pretty.

do we have men like them now, profiles in courage who can lead and persuade? do we have leaders amongst us who would do what men did during the Constitutional Convention? They put aside their differences, even as they conspired to do what was right and good, and without the proper authority. They were brave men, but also well respected men.

Our downfall if it comes, will come out of a lack of respect, for diversity, differences and commonality---for shared goals.

I have tried for years to get others to believe that opponents are not enemies. It is a difficult sell.

Christianity would teach that we can survive in spite of ourselves.

Christianity teaches no such thing, unless one calls dying, and hoping to rise up from the dead and go flying out to some imaginary heavens---surviving.

Here is a New Testament Verse.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;



Here is a perspective from the Old Testament.

Ezekiel 18:25 Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?

18:26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

18:27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.



Here is a second POV from the Old Testament.

1 Kings 8:37 If there be in the land famine, if there be pestilence, blasting, mildew, locust, or if there be caterpillar; if their enemy besiege them in the land of their cities; whatsoever plague, whatsoever sickness there be;

8:38 What prayer and supplication soever be made by any man, or by all thy people Israel, which shall know every man the plague of his own heart, and spread forth his hands toward this house:

8:39 Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men

 

[Intense]

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

I've noticed that as well. JKB seems to like to point out non-points of the post in order to discredit the entire concept like if you mentioned the color red he would say some nonsense red isn't red in order to win. He doesn't make any sense.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...hor-baby-provisions-are-unconstitutional.html

I'll give your opinion all the merit it warrants

Studying the history of Anchor Babies, there was a time when most Nations wanted bodies, and saw that as an avenue towards building the ranks. Times have changed. The place to address this is more Congress than the Courts. Constitutional Amendment to clarify and determine, in fairness. Consider the aging work force around the world, where the folk's are migrating to, and the void they leave behind, before the lines in the sand are drawn.

 

[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.

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.

The Constitution can be amended. Anyway, I'm a generally believe in situational ethics. I sometimes challenge people to give me an "absolute". I can often invent a scenario where the one giving me the "absolute" would question his own statement.