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.
Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?
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?
To all you American haters...
During the gulf war II I've seen a lot of people on the far left do some things that I haven't seen since the sixties such as buring the American flag. I know that half the democratic party doesn't think like that and it ain't fair to attribute the qualities of a few people to a much larger group such as the democratic party but everytime we point this out you guys seem to deny it completely. All you have to say I don't agree with what that person is doing and most reasonable people should be fine with that because what someone believes is independent of their political identification such as being liberal or conservative.
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.
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.
Out of the forms emboldened? Where do you say we are right now? I see us leading toward Pure Democracy [Mob Rule]...that will lead to Socialism...and that of Anarchy eventually as we see in Greece right now *IF* we stay on the present course.
And I see it as being totally on purpose...that is by the Ideology of Design by those in power right now.
Nice Post.
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.
Out of the forms emboldened? Where do you say we are right now? I see us leading toward Pure Democracy [Mob Rule]...that will lead to Socialism...and that of Anarchy eventually as we see in Greece right now *IF* we stay on the present course.
And I see it as being totally on purpose...that is by the Ideology of Design by those in power right now.
Nice Post.
I dunno. I think if we were veering more toward pure democracy, we would not have seen the government acting so blatantly against the will of the people in recent legislation. Certainly a substantial majority of Americans were opposed to that healthcare overhaul as well as the stimulus package, but their objections fell on deaf ears. They were ridiculed and accused in fact.
I tend to think we are rushing headlong to a totally authoritarian government which of course is the step just below dictatorship or totalitarianism. Even the fuzzy governments of Europe don't seem to embrace total government authority over everything as much as our current government.
The problem is that once we hand over our unalienable rights to government to manage to the extent that we are one step below totalitarianism, we are pretty well helpless to prevent totalitarianism from taking over should our leaders be so inclined.
I agree to this too. I wish not to be around *IF* we ever get to that point. Again which makes this election even more crucial. A direction has to be made. I think though that the writing is on the proverbial wall by the massive retirements/Bailouts of the perps themselves with Obey being the latest casuality.The only remedy for that is another American Revolution and I really don't relish the idea of that.
Asserting the existence of something does not mean it exists.
Consider the $100,000,000,000 I assert is in my wallet.
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)
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.
My Rights are evidenced through possession, action and voice. 
Feel free to assert your Right to believe in Unicorns. I have no problem there. That is a Right. Whether Unicorns exist remains to be seen. I will assert my Right to remain skeptical. 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.
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.
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.
Out of the forms emboldened? Where do you say we are right now? I see us leading toward Pure Democracy [Mob Rule]...that will lead to Socialism...and that of Anarchy eventually as we see in Greece right now *IF* we stay on the present course.
And I see it as being totally on purpose...that is by the Ideology of Design by those in power right now.
Nice Post.
Pardon me for being a doo-doo head, but can anyone define "Pure Democracy" for me?
Incidentially, a pro pros of nothing whatsoever, the chick in that image is Marilyn Chambers, star of "Behind the Green Door".
LOL.
Democracy is the political orgasm of an anarchist.
Pardon me for being a doo-doo head, but can anyone define "Pure Democracy" for me?
Pardon me for being a doo-doo head, but can anyone define "Pure Democracy" for me?
A 'pure' democracy would decide everything for the entire group based on a majority vote whether via referendum or bond issuance or town meeting or whatever. That is the way most community value or quality of life decisions should be done--funding a new library; city beautification projects. etc.
As a side note, however, I think in a true democracy only those who will be obligated to pay for the value or quality of life issue should have a vote in the process.
Everything else seems to steam roll individual will. Some have a hard time respecting the will of others, too caught up in running everything.
Pardon me for being a doo-doo head, but can anyone define "Pure Democracy" for me?
Incidentially, a pro pros of nothing whatsoever, the chick in that image is Marilyn Chambers, star of "Behind the Green Door".
LOL.
