Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[mattskramer]

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 aren’t equal results for all people a natural right? Don’t you see? These notions about rights are just a human invention.

So said the thief to the Judge.

I don't understand your point - if you have one. I am not a thief and I doubt that you are a judge. Are you going to answer my questions?

 

[mattskramer]

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.

It seems like you are saying that "rights" are a human invention. As I keep saying, "rights" don't exist in and of themselves - outside of human imagination. People can invent things and call them "rights". These things might be violated or they might not be violated. In either case, there are consequences. Sometimes bad things happen to people who obey these "rights". Sometimes good things happen to people who disobey these "rights".

On the other hand, aside from the abstract concept of this notion called "rights", human beings have been proven to exist. They have form and substance.

 

[JBeukema]

That does not make sense. Perhaps you really do drink. Alcohol is a lie-based and toxic liquid that is promoted by society.

Did you used to hang out with an old broad who carried a hatchet?

 

[JBeukema]

That does not make sense. Perhaps you really do drink. Alcohol is a lie-based and toxic liquid that is promoted by society.

Did you used to hang out with an old broad who carried a hatchet?

I do not require the company of any human creature.


----------
For more information on My posts, visit My philosophy website at TM8k

So you can confirm that you are, in fact a subhuman troll?

 

[Intense]

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.

It seems like you are saying that "rights" are a human invention. As I keep saying, "rights" don't exist in and of themselves - outside of human imagination. People can invent things and call them "rights". These things might be violated or they might not be violated. In either case, there are consequences. Sometimes bad things happen to people who obey these "rights". Sometimes good things happen to people who disobey these "rights".

On the other hand, aside from the abstract concept of this notion called "rights", human beings have been proven to exist. They have form and substance.

We assert them. Our works are evidence of our rights.

 

[JBeukema]

Asserting the existence of something does not mean it exists.

Consider the $100,000,000,000 I assert is in my wallet.

 

[Foxfyre]

Asserting the existence of something does not mean it exists.

Consider the $100,000,000,000 I assert is in my wallet.

Maybe a better word than 'assert' would be 'recognize'.

The Founders 'recognized' that nobody needed permission in order to think, to hope, to aspire, to wonder, to believe, to worship, to breathe, to hunger, to thirst, to satisfy all, to understand, to speak, to pursue happiness, to be free. All that one needed for these things was the non interference of others. Thus, the concept of unalienable 'God given' rights was 'recognized'.

Nobody can confer such rights; they can only take them away. And so they adopted a Constitution that recognized such rights and imposed consequences for any who would presume to take them away.

 

[JBeukema]

The Founders 'recognized' that nobody needed permission in order to think, to hope, to aspire, to wonder, to believe, to worship, to breathe, to hunger, to thirst, to satisfy all, to understand, to speak, to pursue happiness, to be free. All that one needed for these things was the non interference of others. Thus, the concept of unalienable 'God given' rights was 'recognized'.

Ability =/= 'right

recognizing ability =/= demonstrating a 'right'

agreeing to protect liberties to act on one's abilities =/= demonstrating a 'right'

You've just described the social contract - one that agrees to protect certain liberties and freedoms (such as speech and assembly)

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders 'recognized' that nobody needed permission in order to think, to hope, to aspire, to wonder, to believe, to worship, to breathe, to hunger, to thirst, to satisfy all, to understand, to speak, to pursue happiness, to be free. All that one needed for these things was the non interference of others. Thus, the concept of unalienable 'God given' rights was 'recognized'.

Ability =/= 'right

recognizing ability =/= demonstrating a 'right'

agreeing to protect liberties to act on one's abilities =/= demonstrating a 'right'

You've just described the social contract - one that agrees to protect certain liberties and freedoms (such as speech and assembly)

Yes. The Constitution is absolutely social contract - one that recognizes and intends to protect unalienable God given rights.

We're all splitting hairs here, but the concept of unalienable rights are those things in the human condition that no human can give another as listed in my previous post. They are not human inventions.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

It seems like you are saying that "rights" are a human invention. As I keep saying, "rights" don't exist in and of themselves - outside of human imagination. People can invent things and call them "rights". These things might be violated or they might not be violated. In either case, there are consequences. Sometimes bad things happen to people who obey these "rights". Sometimes good things happen to people who disobey these "rights".

On the other hand, aside from the abstract concept of this notion called "rights", human beings have been proven to exist. They have form and substance.

We assert them. Our works are evidence of our rights.

I assert that unicorns exist. I draw pictures of them and worship them. They speak to me and I do what I hear them say. What I do for them is evidence that they exist. Have you ever heard of the placebo? Work that you do with respect to something that you think is real is not proof that such a thing exists.

 

[mattskramer]

The Founders 'recognized' that nobody needed permission in order to think, to hope, to aspire, to wonder, to believe, to worship, to breathe, to hunger, to thirst, to satisfy all, to understand, to speak, to pursue happiness, to be free. All that one needed for these things was the non interference of others. Thus, the concept of unalienable 'God given' rights was 'recognized'.

Ability =/= 'right

recognizing ability =/= demonstrating a 'right'

agreeing to protect liberties to act on one's abilities =/= demonstrating a 'right'

You've just described the social contract - one that agrees to protect certain liberties and freedoms (such as speech and assembly)

All that we are talking about is agreements and social contracts. None of this proves that they are unalienable God given rights.

 

[mattskramer]

The Founders 'recognized' that nobody needed permission in order to think, to hope, to aspire, to wonder, to believe, to worship, to breathe, to hunger, to thirst, to satisfy all, to understand, to speak, to pursue happiness, to be free. All that one needed for these things was the non interference of others. Thus, the concept of unalienable 'God given' rights was 'recognized'.

Ability =/= 'right

recognizing ability =/= demonstrating a 'right'

agreeing to protect liberties to act on one's abilities =/= demonstrating a 'right'

You've just described the social contract - one that agrees to protect certain liberties and freedoms (such as speech and assembly)

Yes. The Constitution is absolutely social contract - one that recognizes and intends to protect unalienable God given rights.

We're all splitting hairs here, but the concept of unalienable rights are those things in the human condition that no human can give another as listed in my previous post. They are not human inventions.

The Constitution protests freedoms. It says that we have God given rights but that does not mean that we have God given rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ability =/= 'right

recognizing ability =/= demonstrating a 'right'

agreeing to protect liberties to act on one's abilities =/= demonstrating a 'right'

You've just described the social contract - one that agrees to protect certain liberties and freedoms (such as speech and assembly)

Yes. The Constitution is absolutely social contract - one that recognizes and intends to protect unalienable God given rights.

We're all splitting hairs here, but the concept of unalienable rights are those things in the human condition that no human can give another as listed in my previous post. They are not human inventions.

The Constitution protests freedoms. It says that we have God given rights but that does not mean that we have God given rights.

I disagree. In the view of the Founders, and what they intended the Constitution to accomplish, is that the only way any of us are free is to have our unalienable rights protected. Once our rights are secured and protected, we are then free to form any sort of society in which we wish to live, or no society at all if seclusion and hermit-tude is in our game plan.

In other words whatever we do that requires no contribution or participation by any other except for his/her non interference is an unalienable right. Because they are essentially limitless, they cannot be enumerated. Only recognized.

Such are not invented by humans but rather they are recognized and acknowledged.

 

[The T]

Yes. The Constitution is absolutely social contract - one that recognizes and intends to protect unalienable God given rights.

We're all splitting hairs here, but the concept of unalienable rights are those things in the human condition that no human can give another as listed in my previous post. They are not human inventions.

The Constitution protests freedoms. It says that we have God given rights but that does not mean that we have God given rights.

I disagree. In the view of the Founders, and what they intended the Constitution to accomplish, is that the only way any of us are free is to have our unalienable rights protected. Once our rights are secured and protected, we are then free to form any sort of society in which we wish to live, or no society at all if seclusion and hermit-tude is in our game plan.

In other words whatever we do that requires no contribution or participation by any other except for his/her non interference is an unalienable right. Because they are essentially limitless, they cannot be enumerated. Only recognized.

Such are not invented by humans but rather they are recognized and acknowledged.

It's about time someone explained True Liberty! -KUDOS-

 

[mattskramer]

The Constitution protests freedoms. It says that we have God given rights but that does not mean that we have God given rights.

I disagree. In the view of the Founders, and what they intended the Constitution to accomplish, is that the only way any of us are free is to have our unalienable rights protected. Once our rights are secured and protected, we are then free to form any sort of society in which we wish to live, or no society at all if seclusion and hermit-tude is in our game plan.

In other words whatever we do that requires no contribution or participation by any other except for his/her non interference is an unalienable right. Because they are essentially limitless, they cannot be enumerated. Only recognized.

Such are not invented by humans but rather they are recognized and acknowledged.

It's about time someone explained True Liberty! -KUDOS-

We supposedly have a right to life. Yet, we can be wrongfully executed (given capital punishment) for a crime that we did not commit. We supposedly have a right to liberty. Yet, it is difficult to exercise that right if you are so severely mentally and physically handicapped that you must always be cared for by others. You supposedly have a right to pursue happiness. Yet, you are not allowed to consume cocaine. You are not even allowed the freedom to engage in prostitution and gamboling in some areas. It seems to me like you can enumerate and limit these “rights”.

 

[The T]

I disagree. In the view of the Founders, and what they intended the Constitution to accomplish, is that the only way any of us are free is to have our unalienable rights protected. Once our rights are secured and protected, we are then free to form any sort of society in which we wish to live, or no society at all if seclusion and hermit-tude is in our game plan.

In other words whatever we do that requires no contribution or participation by any other except for his/her non interference is an unalienable right. Because they are essentially limitless, they cannot be enumerated. Only recognized.

Such are not invented by humans but rather they are recognized and acknowledged.

It's about time someone explained True Liberty! -KUDOS-

We supposedly have a right to life. Yet, we can be wrongfully executed (given capital punishment) for a crime that we did not commit. We supposedly have a right to liberty. Yet, it is difficult to exercise that right if you are so severely mentally and physically handicapped that you must always be cared for by others. You supposedly have a right to pursue happiness. Yet, you are not allowed to consume cocaine. You are not even allowed the freedom to engage in prostitution and gamboling in some areas. It seems to me like you can enumerate and limit these “rights”.

Guess where the problem lies?

 

[mattskramer]

It's about time someone explained True Liberty! -KUDOS-

We supposedly have a right to life. Yet, we can be wrongfully executed (given capital punishment) for a crime that we did not commit. We supposedly have a right to liberty. Yet, it is difficult to exercise that right if you are so severely mentally and physically handicapped that you must always be cared for by others. You supposedly have a right to pursue happiness. Yet, you are not allowed to consume cocaine. You are not even allowed the freedom to engage in prostitution and gamboling in some areas. It seems to me like you can enumerate and limit these “rights”.

Guess where the problem lies?

You tell me. I guess that I’m clueless. It seems to me that there is no such thing as inalienable god-given rights - Just basic agreements (social contracts). All men are created equal. What about women? People have a right to liberty. What about slaves? What about the fact that these supposed rights have changed in one way or another over time? Let’s say that you have a right to drink alcohol. Now let’s say that you don’t have a right to do with your body as you like with respect to alcohol (prohibition). Now, let’s allow people to drink alcohol again. Rights are just a human invention.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree. In the view of the Founders, and what they intended the Constitution to accomplish, is that the only way any of us are free is to have our unalienable rights protected. Once our rights are secured and protected, we are then free to form any sort of society in which we wish to live, or no society at all if seclusion and hermit-tude is in our game plan.

In other words whatever we do that requires no contribution or participation by any other except for his/her non interference is an unalienable right. Because they are essentially limitless, they cannot be enumerated. Only recognized.

Such are not invented by humans but rather they are recognized and acknowledged.

It's about time someone explained True Liberty! -KUDOS-

We supposedly have a right to life. Yet, we can be wrongfully executed (given capital punishment) for a crime that we did not commit. We supposedly have a right to liberty. Yet, it is difficult to exercise that right if you are so severely mentally and physically handicapped that you must always be cared for by others. You supposedly have a right to pursue happiness. Yet, you are not allowed to consume cocaine. You are not even allowed the freedom to engage in prostitution and gamboling in some areas. It seems to me like you can enumerate and limit these “rights”.

The fact that others infringe on your rights does not mean they do not exist. But again it is important to distinguish between a privilege and a right. A 'right' requires no participation or contribution from another. There is no 'right' to be cared for by others if you are severely mentally and physically handicapped. Such requires both contribution and participation by somebody else.

But others have a 'right' to choose to see to your needs in such cases--they just don't have a 'right' to demand that others also choose to tend to your needs in such cases.

You have every right to consume cocaine, as much as you want if you can get it. But you do not have a right to impose any negative consequences of that on anybody else or agree that others must accept the risk of such negative consequences.

The social contract must impose consequences for infringing on the rights of others or else nobody is free; nobody's rights are protected. If that results in an unfair conviction and execution, that is tragic and indefensible. But it is a tragic and indefensible mistake and does not change the fact that people are born with an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[The T]

It's about time someone explained True Liberty! -KUDOS-

We supposedly have a right to life. Yet, we can be wrongfully executed (given capital punishment) for a crime that we did not commit. We supposedly have a right to liberty. Yet, it is difficult to exercise that right if you are so severely mentally and physically handicapped that you must always be cared for by others. You supposedly have a right to pursue happiness. Yet, you are not allowed to consume cocaine. You are not even allowed the freedom to engage in prostitution and gamboling in some areas. It seems to me like you can enumerate and limit these “rights”.

The fact that others infringe on your rights does not mean they do not exist. But again it is important to distinguish between a privilege and a right. A 'right' requires no participation or contribution from another. There is no 'right' to be cared for by others if you are severely mentally and physically handicapped. Such requires both contribution and participation by somebody else.

But others have a 'right' to choose to see to your needs in such cases--they just don't have a 'right' to demand that others also choose to tend to your needs in such cases.

You have every right to consume cocaine, as much as you want if you can get it. But you do not have a right to impose any negative consequences of that on anybody else or agree that others must accept the risk of such negative consequences.

The social contract must impose consequences for infringing on the rights of others or else nobody is free; nobody's rights are protected. If that results in an unfair conviction and execution, that is tragic and indefensible. But it is a tragic and indefensible mistake and does not change the fact that people are born with an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thank you. Perfect. Well stated. For Liberty to flourish...Society on whole makes demands to see to it that it does by Law.

 

[Foxfyre]

We supposedly have a right to life. Yet, we can be wrongfully executed (given capital punishment) for a crime that we did not commit. We supposedly have a right to liberty. Yet, it is difficult to exercise that right if you are so severely mentally and physically handicapped that you must always be cared for by others. You supposedly have a right to pursue happiness. Yet, you are not allowed to consume cocaine. You are not even allowed the freedom to engage in prostitution and gamboling in some areas. It seems to me like you can enumerate and limit these “rights”.

The fact that others infringe on your rights does not mean they do not exist. But again it is important to distinguish between a privilege and a right. A 'right' requires no participation or contribution from another. There is no 'right' to be cared for by others if you are severely mentally and physically handicapped. Such requires both contribution and participation by somebody else.

But others have a 'right' to choose to see to your needs in such cases--they just don't have a 'right' to demand that others also choose to tend to your needs in such cases.

You have every right to consume cocaine, as much as you want if you can get it. But you do not have a right to impose any negative consequences of that on anybody else or agree that others must accept the risk of such negative consequences.

The social contract must impose consequences for infringing on the rights of others or else nobody is free; nobody's rights are protected. If that results in an unfair conviction and execution, that is tragic and indefensible. But it is a tragic and indefensible mistake and does not change the fact that people are born with an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thank you. Perfect. Well stated. For Liberty to flourish...Society on whole makes demands to see to it that it does by Law.

Yes, and the social contract by which America came into being was, at least at the time, unique among nations of the world. It decreed that the people would not be governed but would rather govern themselves. The function of government was to secure their rights so that they would have absolute freedom to do that. They knew it could not happen under monarchy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, pure democracy, or anarchy. It had to happen through a representative government that honored and respected the intent of the Constitution to secure and protect the people's unalienable rights.