Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[Intense]

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.

I'll take Moral Absolutism over Moral Relativism every time. There are absolutes that we draw from. The application unique to circumstance. My point is that if you cannot achieve without corruption, you are either not trying hard enough, or you are looking in the wrong direction. The Principle remains true, the application, misses and fails to recognize and address, recheck your premise.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

Yep. The founding fathers hand opinions and notions about "rights" wrote them out. At least we agree on that. Still, it can't be proven that natural rights exist.

 

[Intense]

I think Citizen's should have more legal right's than Non-Citizen's, even trial by jury. That said, treason should be included in the charges.

 

[Intense]

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.

Yep. The founding fathers hand opinions and notions about "rights" wrote them out. At least we agree on that. Still, it can't be proven that natural rights exist.

Still, it can't be proven that natural rights exist.

Funny, you are exercising one right now.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

I'll take Moral Absolutism over Moral Relativism every time. There are absolutes that we draw from. The application unique to circumstance.

Give me an absolute. Is always wrong to lie? Is it always right to obey the people in charge of the government? If so, then picture yourself in Nazi Germany as the neighbor of a Jewish sympathizer. You know that your neighbor is assisting in an underground railroad getting Jews out of Germany. The German SS question you about your neighbor. What do you do?

Is it always wrong to steal? A chemist invented a cure for a painful deadly disease that your must beloved is suffering from. The chemist made a lot of it, is wealthy, and wouldn’t miss some if it were secretly taken. Yet, the chemist’s price for the cure is more than you can afford to pay. No one is willing or able to help you. Do you shoplift some of it or not?

 

[Oddball]

Still, it can't be proven that natural rights exist.

Funny, you are exercising one right now.

What matts has done is what we commonly refer to as "deflection".

The OP asks whether the two are compatible...The answer to which is obviously a big "NO".

Therefore, the committed apologist for mob rule must question whether those rights even exist to begin with.

 

[mattskramer]

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:



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.

Yep. The founding fathers hand opinions and notions about "rights" wrote them out. At least we agree on that. Still, it can't be proven that natural rights exist.

Still, it can't be proven that natural rights exist.

Funny, you are exercising one right now.

I am doing things but they are not "natural rights".
They are things that I choose to do and that I am allowed to do.

 

[JBeukema]

I think Citizen's should have more legal right's than Non-Citizen's, even trial by jury. That said, treason should be included in the charges.

So non-citizens shouldn't have a fair trial by jury? Any tourist can be a patsy whenever the State need to pin something on someone?

 

[JBeukema]

Still, it can't be proven that natural rights exist.

Funny, you are exercising one right now.

Actually, he's acting in his capacity and enjoying his liberty to speak and his privilege of being allowed to do so on a privately owned message board.

But just keep trying to avoid admitting that you're trapped in a corner. It's amusing.

 

[rikules]

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 can't.

you only have the rights you can defend.

and I'm betting YOU can't defend any of them

 

[mattskramer]

Still, it can't be proven that natural rights exist.

Funny, you are exercising one right now.

What matts has done is what we commonly refer to as "deflection".

The OP asks whether the two are compatible...The answer to which is obviously a big "NO".

Therefore, the committed apologist for mob rule must question whether those rights even exist to begin with.

I don't mean to deflect. I think that we are in agreement. The answer to the OP is "NO". I am not apologizing for anything. I am simply expanding on the general notion of what "natural rights" really are. I content that they are merely privileges and rules that we (society, mob, a collective of people, etc.) for the most part, through representative government, agree to live by.

 

[JBeukema]

The answer to which is obviously a big "NO".

So the FF formed a nation incompatible with the natural rights the espoused?

Therefore, the committed apologist for mob rule

You're lying again

Do show where anyone in this thread has advocated unbridled direct democracy as opposed to the limited representative democracy characteristic of the republic.

 

[mattskramer]

Still, it can't be proven that natural rights exist.

Funny, you are exercising one right now.

Actually, he's acting in his capacity and enjoying his liberty to speak and his privilege of being alowed to do so on a privately owned message board.

But just keep trying to avoid admitting that you're trapped in a corner. It's amusing.

Right on!

 

[Oddball]

The answer to which is obviously a big "NO".

So the FF formed a nation incompatible with the natural rights the espoused?

Therefore, the committed apologist for mob rule

You're lying again

Do show where anyone in this thread has advocated unbridled direct democracy as opposed to the limited representative democracy characteristic of the republic.

Whatever, tovarich.

 

[mattskramer]

So the FF formed a nation incompatible with the natural rights the espoused?

Good point. There seems to be a littel inconsistency in what the FF stated. Yet, no one is perfect. Jefferson owned a slave.

 

[JBeukema]

Once again, when asked to demonstrate your assertions, you can't, because you're a liar.

 

[JBeukema]

I love how these people (including Dude, the would-be aristocrat who says only the wealthy should have any rights or be allowed to vote) can never forward any system better able to protect men's 'rights' while they attack the very system they claim to love so much.

 

[mattskramer]

Once again, when asked to demonstrate your assertions, you can't, because you're a liar.

I get lost in the posts. Who is the liar?

 

[JBeukema]

Once again, when asked to demonstrate your assertions, you can't, because you're a liar.

I get lost in the posts. Who is the liar?

Dude, who called you a 'committed apologist for mob rule'.

I told him to cite where you or anyone else in this thread advocated unbridled direct democracy over the limited representative democracy characteristic of the Republic.

He can't, so he plugs his ears and goes 'lalalalala'

 

[Intense]

I think Citizen's should have more legal right's than Non-Citizen's, even trial by jury. That said, treason should be included in the charges.

So non-citizens shouldn't have a fair trial by jury? Any tourist can be a patsy whenever the State need to pin something on someone?

Act of Terrorism , Act of War, Military Tribunal. I respect your point, yet refrain from encouraging negative behavior, with a public platform.