Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[Foxfyre]

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.

I'll stick with A Constitutional Federal Republic. Everything else seems to steam roll individual will. Some have a hard time respecting the will of others, too caught up in running everything.

Referendums, bond elections, and for the little burg, Town Hall meetings, are fine for deciding some things and are really the only fair way to do it for some things. In anything materially involving the whole, however, I agree that a pure democracy sometimes gets in the way of the best decisions.

 

[The T]

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.

I'll stick with A Constitutional Federal Republic. Everything else seems to steam roll individual will. Some have a hard time respecting the will of others, too caught up in running everything.

Referendums, bond elections, and for the little burg, Town Hall meetings, are fine for deciding some things and are really the only fair way to do it for some things. In anything materially involving the whole, however, I agree that a pure democracy sometimes gets in the way of the best decisions.

I agree. And what are politics but local? Isn't it what the Founders wanted with the FED playing a limited Constitutional role?

I'm happy to know someone else that gets it, and isn't afraid to show it.

[Now might I ask about the PIC in your Sigline? Is that The National Archives]?

Regards,

~T

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll stick with A Constitutional Federal Republic. Everything else seems to steam roll individual will. Some have a hard time respecting the will of others, too caught up in running everything.

Referendums, bond elections, and for the little burg, Town Hall meetings, are fine for deciding some things and are really the only fair way to do it for some things. In anything materially involving the whole, however, I agree that a pure democracy sometimes gets in the way of the best decisions.

I agree. And what are politics but local? Isn't it what the Founders wanted with the FED playing a limited Constitutional role?

I'm happy to know someone else that gets it, and isn't afraid to show it.

[Now might I ask about the PIC in your Sigline? Is that The National Archives]?

Regards,

~T

Yes. You really don't want the Federal government doing any more than securing our rights as the Constitution specifies. State governments, more local, can probably take on a bit more and the local government is where most government should be happening. When we stuck to that principle, we had a whole lot less grief from government to deal with.

As for the PIC in my sigline, that is a corner of the USMB Coffee House

 

[JBeukema]

The fact that others infringe on your rights does not mean they do not exist.

That you repeat yourself does not mean anything exists.

A 'right' requires no participation or contribution from another

So I've a right to rape your mothers corpse? What about to marry my love, even if they're the same sex [you need not participate]? To make Ricin?

Again, ability =/= 'right'

. 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.

Ability and liberty

you've demonstrated no 'right'

The social contract defends liberties and nothing more. You can speak of all the 'rights' you wish, but you're really only discussing liberties and abilities. The only 'rights' are those created in accordance with contract (such as my 'right' to reclaim my property if you stop paying, in accordance with the lease agreement)

 

[JBeukema]

Democracy (read: mob rule) is not nor has it ever been compatible with natural rights.

Wow, another moron who thinks 'democracy' only refers to a single form of governance....


amazing, the ignorance in this thread

 

[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)

They exist within or without of the social contract.

Demonstrate.

Define them.

Define an experiment to detect them.

Show them.

Measure them.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact that others infringe on your rights does not mean they do not exist.

That you repeat yourself does not mean anything exists.)

But I have a right to repeat myself. In some cases of particular obtuseness, it sometimes becomes an obligation to do so. (Obligation, by the way, is different from a right.)

A 'right' requires no participation or contribution from another

So I've a right to rape your mothers corpse? What about to marry my love, even if they're the same sex [you need not participate]? To make Ricin?

Again, ability =/= 'right'

To rape even a corpse does require participation/contribution from another. Whether gay or straight, you have the right to marry anybody any place you please so long as the other is willing. You do not, however, have a right to require anybody else to make it legal, or official, or participate in that in any way.

An 'ability' and a 'right' are two entirely separate things.

. 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.

Ability and liberty

you've demonstrated no 'right'

If there is any objection to me helping somebody in need, I might not have ability to act. But to choose to act is always my right.

The social contract defends liberties and nothing more. You can speak of all the 'rights' you wish, but you're really only discussing liberties and abilities. The only 'rights' are those created in accordance with contract (such as my 'right' to reclaim my property if you stop paying, in accordance with the lease agreement)

The social contract is the agreement among cooperating free people--the operative word here is free --as to what rules, regulations, and laws best protect the rights of the people and agreement on what consequences will be imposed for violation of those rights. The social contract among free people indeed defends liberties, and designates the sort of society in which they choose to live.

 

[JBeukema]

That you repeat yourself does not mean anything exists.)

But I have a right to repeat myself.

...

To rape even a corpse does require participation/contribution from another.

O rly? Who?

Whether gay or straight, you have the right to marry anybody any place you please so long as the other is willing. You do not, however, have a right to require anybody else to make it legal, or official,

definition fail

An 'ability' and a 'right' are two entirely separate things.

Yet you conflate the two consistently

 

[Foxfyre]

That you repeat yourself does not mean anything exists.)

But I have a right to repeat myself.

...

O rly? Who?

Whether gay or straight, you have the right to marry anybody any place you please so long as the other is willing. You do not, however, have a right to require anybody else to make it legal, or official,

definition fail

An 'ability' and a 'right' are two entirely separate things.

Yet you conflate the two consistently

So you give up on No. 1? Good, we're making progress then.

On No. 2 yes, really. You do not have the right to utilize the property of another for any purpose without permission to do so. If you have custody of the body, you can do whatever you wish within the law, however.

On No. 3, I'm afraid the only one conflating the two is you.

Do have a good night. (If we continue, I'm almost sure I'll have to repeat myself.)

 

[JBeukema]

lol


All you've done is repeat the same defeated rhetoric and declare victory

 

[mattskramer]

On No. 3, I'm afraid the only one conflating the two is you.

Do have a good night. (If we continue, I'm almost sure I'll have to repeat myself.)

No, but you may need to correct yourself.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2283609-post392.html

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Democracy (read: mob rule) is not nor has it ever been compatible with natural rights.

Wow, another moron who thinks 'democracy' only refers to a single form of governance....


amazing, the ignorance in this thread

you're a little slow on the uptake, but yeah...amazing.

 

[Douger]

Democracy is bullshit. 51% of the assholes force their will on the other 49%.

 

[Care4all]

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 don't know what natural rights are....find them first....then you will see, they can not take them away....

hint:

can they take away....what you think? can your own thoughts be removed from you?

can your own belief in God or Thor, be taken away from you?

 

[Intense]

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)

They exist within or without of the social contract.

Demonstrate.

Define them.

Define an experiment to detect them.

Show them.

Measure them.

They are defined in every thought, word, action, choice, accomplishment. You act Like One needs your or society's consent, that is wrong, and that is the point.

 

[Intense]

There are things we do to each other that are instinctively wrong and bring consequence. There is positive and negative action, that which builds, restores, maintains, opens to discovery, realization, and invention. There is that which brings pain, suffering, enslavement, imprisonment, death, with out conscience. Take the hint.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 don't know what natural rights are....find them first....then you will see, they can not take them away....

hint:

can they take away....what you think? can your own thoughts be removed from you?

can your own belief in God or Thor, be taken away from you?

Thank you, thank you. Another has joined our apparently very small group here who understands the concept of natural/unalienable rights.

You're right that they can't be taken away.

But they can be infringed by those who would punish you or prevent you from manifesting them. Our Constitution attaches the principle that consequences can be applied when some would presume to infringe on the rights of others.

 

[JBeukema]

lol


repetition =/= demonstration


else there'd be no arguing with Obama's claims to have fixed the economy

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw]YouTube - Different Presidents, A Different Corps[/ame]

 

[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 don't know what natural rights are....find them first....then you will see, they can not take them away....

hint:

can they take away....what you think? can your own thoughts be removed from you?

can your own belief in God or Thor, be taken away from you?

I wasn't disagreeing with the concept of natural rights but trying to point out that they are not compatitable with democracy since a majority of people can remove something from you such as your rights and freedom which destroys the concept of inalienable rights. My disagreement come from democracy not on the concept of a person's natural freedom.