Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.Still, it can't be proven that natural rights exist.
Funny, you are exercising one right now.
But just keep trying to avoid admitting that you're trapped in a corner. It's amusing.
What matts has done is what we commonly refer to as "deflection".Still, it can't be proven that natural rights exist.
Funny, you are exercising one right now.
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.
Nobody is forcing you to believe in God. You all seem so touchy on something you don't understand.
I'll take Moral Absolutism over Moral Relativism every time.
...
Long ago I gave up taking the Bible seriously, except as a very old book with some quaint outlooks on life and some puzzling poetry among some very disturbing stories and judgments of human nature.Here is a New Testament Verse.
...
Here is a perspective from the Old Testament.
...
Here is a second POV from the Old Testament.
...
PREFACE
THE investigation of the practice of the review of legislative acts by the courts to test their conformity with the provisions of written constitutions has involved the consideration of theories of natural law and of ideas of superior fundamental laws. These theories and ideas are closely related to doctrines of higher or superior laws which have accompanied the growth of legal systems. Due to the importance of such ideas in public law and in the development of limits on the different branches of modern governments, a study has been made of the main stages in the evolution of higher law concepts. A considerable part of the study is devoted to the significance of natural law ideas in the interpretation of the state and federal constitutions in the United States, where natural law doctrines have been extensively applied. The review of the growth of natural law ideas and the presentation of representative opinions of European publicists are intended to aid in the interpretation of American theories and as a perspective to evaluate some modern tendencies in constitutional development in the United States.
It is evident that the concepts of natural law and of fundamental law are frequently associated. Though natural law may be thought of with little relation to the notion involved in fundamental laws, and fundamental laws may be conceived unrelated to natural law, it is customary at various stages of such analyses for one idea to merge into the other. Carlyle, in speaking of the views of the Roman jurists on natural law, doubted whether any of the lawyers had very clear conceptions upon the matter. As a matter of fact all theories of natural law have a singular vagueness which is both an advantage and disadvantage in the application of the theories.
Philosophers emphasize the fact that such a term as natural law is a value concept and the result of an attitude an attitude which presupposes certain psychic processes. Such value concepts are in one sense subjective, and in another sense they have a normative objectivity. It is beyond the scope of this treatise to deal with the philosophical and psychological processes which underlie natural law thinking. The purpose is to present different types of theories in their legal development and to note their applications by jurists and lawyers.
Articles by the writer relating in part to this subject have appeared in the Yale Law Journal, Illinois Law Review, and the Texas Law Review. The portions used from these articles have been rewritten in a continuous account with the exception of extracts from the Texas Law Review which are reprinted with some minor changes by permission of the editors. In the presentation of ideas relating to natural law in European countries, I have received invaluable assistance from Professor Georgio del Vecchio, Rector of the University of Rome, and Professor Louis Le Fur of the Faculty of Law of the University of Paris, who have favored me with very useful Italian and French publications relating to natural law. In addition I have been accorded the privilege by authors and publishers to translate and reprint portions of the works of European authorities on natural law. I take pleasure in expressing my appreciation for aid received from Dean Roscoe Pound, who has frequently indicated in books and in articles the influence of natural law concepts in the development of American law.
CHARLES GROVE HAINES
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
November, 1929
Haines: Revival of Natural Law Concepts: Preface
Contents
Haines: The Revival of Natural Law Concepts
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.Still, it can't be proven that natural rights exist.
Funny, you are exercising one right now.
But just keep trying to avoid admitting that you're trapped in a corner. It's amusing.
Should the message board fail him, there are other avenues. You amuse me too.
"Philosophers emphasize the fact that such a term as natural law is a value concept and the result of an attitude an attitude which presupposes certain psychic processes." well said.
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.
With or without society, I live, Eat, drink, breathe, occupy my time with thought, word, action, and inaction, by choice and natural right. I'm loving it too. I'd rather be painted in a corner than exiting a plane at 5000 ft without a parachute.
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.Still, it can't be proven that natural rights exist.
Funny, you are exercising one right now.
But just keep trying to avoid admitting that you're trapped in a corner. It's amusing.
Right on!
With or without society, I live, Eat, drink, breathe, occupy my time with thought, word, action, and inaction, by choice and natural right. I'm loving it too. I'd rather be painted in a corner than exiting a plane at 5000 ft without a parachute.
You do those things within the parameters of your choices combined with rules and laws allowing you to do such things. Doing such things does not prove that you have a natural right to do those things. Government might some day decide that people should be prohibited from speaking certain things or eating certain things. I think that it is against the law to advocate the murder of the president. It is also against the law to consume cocaine.
No one is forcing you to disbelieve in God. What is it that I do not understand?
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!
Whoever owns this board has a natural right to decide the rules of the people who use it because it is their property. It may seem like a restriction similar to a government's law but the government has no natural right to direct people in their lives in the same way this board owner gets to decide the rules of its users. The reason is the government does not own anything so it does not have a right control how something is used and neither does anyone else around me. The democratic body of the people own nothing of mine. The do not own my body, my soul, my car, my home, and any other possession so for that reason they have no right to tell me what to do over the use of those things that I own.
This is why no government whatsoever has not default rights whatsoever over anyone. They do not own anything that belongs to each individual but we allow it some authority to protect those things since people will always scheme to take those things away.
With or without society, I live, Eat, drink, breathe, occupy my time with thought, word, action, and inaction, by choice and natural right. I'm loving it too. I'd rather be painted in a corner than exiting a plane at 5000 ft without a parachute.
You do those things within the parameters of your choices combined with rules and laws allowing you to do such things. Doing such things does not prove that you have a natural right to do those things. Government might some day decide that people should be prohibited from speaking certain things or eating certain things. I think that it is against the law to advocate the murder of the president. It is also against the law to consume cocaine.
No one is forcing you to disbelieve in God. What is it that I do not understand?
OK. You say that people do not have any default rights whatsoever but lets assume tha tis true for arguments sake. Why does government have any rights whatsoever considering they are made up of the same people that you said have no rights. They must have gotten those rights from somewhere but how can they have any rights whatsoever if the human beings that they rule over didn't have any to begin with that they could lend to them?
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!
Whoever owns this board has a natural right to decide the rules of the people who use it because it is their property. It may seem like a restriction similar to a government's law but the government has no natural right to direct people in their lives in the same way this board owner gets to decide the rules of its users. The reason is the government does not own anything so it does not have a right control how something is used and neither does anyone else around me. The democratic body of the people own nothing of mine. The do not own my body, my soul, my car, my home, and any other possession so for that reason they have no right to tell me what to do over the use of those things that I own.
This is why no government whatsoever has not default rights whatsoever over anyone. They do not own anything that belongs to each individual but we allow it some authority to protect those things since people will always scheme to take those things away.
Right on!
Whoever owns this board has a natural right to decide the rules of the people who use it because it is their property. It may seem like a restriction similar to a government's law but the government has no natural right to direct people in their lives in the same way this board owner gets to decide the rules of its users. The reason is the government does not own anything so it does not have a right control how something is used and neither does anyone else around me. The democratic body of the people own nothing of mine. The do not own my body, my soul, my car, my home, and any other possession so for that reason they have no right to tell me what to do over the use of those things that I own.
This is why no government whatsoever has not default rights whatsoever over anyone. They do not own anything that belongs to each individual but we allow it some authority to protect those things since people will always scheme to take those things away.
Property rights are by no means "natural", even assuming we could agree on who owns what.
BTW, USMB is actually owned by The Mattel Company. It is a loss-leader. You are seeing subliminal images of My Little Pony! You will never be free! Fear US!
Whoopsie...meglomaniac attack. *Burp*
LMAO.
You Have No Natural Rights...not even to breathe. As in, you cannot breathe if you are in a Death Camp Oven, or next to Chernobyl when it blew.
There. Are. No. Guarantees. In. Life.
Turn off the reruns of "Lassie"....you're hurting yourself with too much of that "la la la" crap, he he.
*Winks*
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 cannot.
The answer is that all legal rights are a lie-based construct and do not exist. There are no rights nor inalienable rights. The society you live in treats you how it sees fit based on what it decided suits its current fascist regime. Also, these "rights" are actually designed to enslave you and break you and deprive you of all legitimate freedom.
However, there are legitimate Truth-based rights, but these can be violated at any time, and are not the same as the legal rights society claims to grant you.
--------
For more information on My posts, visit My philosophy website at TM8k
Whoever owns this board has a natural right to decide the rules of the people who use it because it is their property. It may seem like a restriction similar to a government's law but the government has no natural right to direct people in their lives in the same way this board owner gets to decide the rules of its users. The reason is the government does not own anything so it does not have a right control how something is used and neither does anyone else around me. The democratic body of the people own nothing of mine. The do not own my body, my soul, my car, my home, and any other possession so for that reason they have no right to tell me what to do over the use of those things that I own.
This is why no government whatsoever has not default rights whatsoever over anyone. They do not own anything that belongs to each individual but we allow it some authority to protect those things since people will always scheme to take those things away.
Property rights are by no means "natural", even assuming we could agree on who owns what.
BTW, USMB is actually owned by The Mattel Company. It is a loss-leader. You are seeing subliminal images of My Little Pony! You will never be free! Fear US!
Whoopsie...meglomaniac attack. *Burp*
LMAO.
You Have No Natural Rights...not even to breathe. As in, you cannot breathe if you are in a Death Camp Oven, or next to Chernobyl when it blew.
There. Are. No. Guarantees. In. Life.
Turn off the reruns of "Lassie"....you're hurting yourself with too much of that "la la la" crap, he he.
*Winks*
Excellent. Just think of Google in China.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Where did that come from? Is it a natural law or a natural right for everyone? Has such always existed or was such a notion man-made? Consider communist and socialist philosophy with respect to natural rights. Why arent equal results for all people a natural right? Dont you see? These notions about rights are just a human invention.
It seems more that you are a victim standing in line waiting your turn. Rights are what one makes them, what one or a group have the balls to stand up and defend. When they are violated, there is consequence. You are a figment of my imagination, you do not exist.
Well, human right in the legal sense are invalid, illegitimate and lie-based. Most human rights you are granted by society are actually to your personal detriment, such a "miranda rights" and the "right" to get married.
For example : Miranda rights are designed to ensure the suspect can both betray himself, and be co-erced into confessions by intimidation, violence etc. If society and the legal system had Truth-based legitimacy, there would be automatic rights that the pig-thugs who are simply hired goons by the society that was responsible for ruining the suspects rights would have no right to question the suspect at all, at least without several supporting people present.
In any situation, the use of responsive action is usually necessary. The racial inequalities in america only ceased when enough blacks became enough of a threat and disruption that the authorities decided to change which groups/individuals to victimize. So action is often a necessity. However, that does not give any legitimacy to any might is right delusion.
---------
For more information on My posts, visit TM8k where you can access in-depth information on these issues I discuss here.
