What "rights" does nature give us?

[SniperFire]

Check your history.

In almost all societies, women are pretty much property.

Until very recently.

Why did you ignore the question?

Because it's silly.

Women, were at one point, basically property.

So what you postulate, has already happened.

Same with Blacks.

History has already answered your questions.

If by popular vote - the majority passed law and decided that all hot latino women ages 14-29 should be sex slaves to the rest of us, and then be our domestic property until we felt like disposing on them - this would be no particular violation of any intrinsic right, correct?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The divine right of kings. Granted by God himself.

 

[Jarhead]

You're wrong about that.

I do fine in this society..and would do just fine in a society where strength and brawn rule the roost.

In any case, rights are defined by societies..which are human constructs..not natural ones or ones that are defined by supernatural beings.

Actually, according to you posts, you do not do fine in this society.

I recall you telling us in a post how your bar failed and you blamed it on outside forces....no fault of your own.

Yet other bars last for decades...even single bars owned by single people for those decades.

So no, you do not do fine in this society. So as opposed to adapting, you prefer to change it.

You need to come to terms with the motivating factors of your political positions.

To deny them does you no good.

50% of new businesses close.

Check it out.

And I am doing fine.

Got a new car, new job, I own a manhattan coop which I rent and I rent a huge apartment in Brooklyn.

but you blamed your failure on others.

That is one who has iussues with society as it is.

And you prefer to change it.

All of the rest? Irrelevant.

However, I am glad to see you got a new job. I know it was a long haul for you.....and I hope it gives you some peace of mind. Seriously.

 

[boedicca]

simple answer......the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....

None of those rights exist in nature.

You live by cunning, speed, strength and agility.

Eat or be eaten.

Only if you compare humans to all other animals on the basest level.

Sooner or later you're going to have to agree that human beings are quite different from all other animals.

I prefer the term inalienable rights over natural rights.

I like the term natural rights - it denotes something that preexists any form of government and is not granted by a government. Such rights are the birth right of every human, even if the society into which he is born violates them.

 

[Newby]

The divine right of kings. Granted by God himself.

Yeah, there's no difference between that and 'all men are created equal'..

 

[Skull Pilot]

None of those rights exist in nature.

You live by cunning, speed, strength and agility.

Eat or be eaten.

Only if you compare humans to all other animals on the basest level.

Sooner or later you're going to have to agree that human beings are quite different from all other animals.

I prefer the term inalienable rights over natural rights.

I like the term natural rights - it denotes something that preexists any form of government and is not granted by a government. Such rights are the birth right of every human, even if the society in which he is born violates them.

Inalienable rights cannot be separated from the individual. They are possessed by the mere act of being a human being not to be given or taken away by government or society

 

[Newby]

Sallow, owned once again.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The divine right of kings. Granted by God himself.

Right. As in, everyone is their own "king". They own themselves. As opposed to being subjects of others.


Some of us here obviously don't like the idea that they sit in their own personal throne. Instead, they want another to cast them into the field and confiscate the fruits of their labor.

 

[Jarhead]

None of those rights exist in nature.

You live by cunning, speed, strength and agility.

Eat or be eaten.

Only if you compare humans to all other animals on the basest level.

Sooner or later you're going to have to agree that human beings are quite different from all other animals.

I prefer the term inalienable rights over natural rights.

I like the term natural rights - it denotes something that preexists any form of government and is not granted by a government. Such rights are the birth right of every human, even if the society in which he is born violates them.

True...although they are not actually "part of nature"...which is Sallow's argument...they are natural from a standpoint of "un natuuaral if they are denied"

 

[Sallow]

Actually, according to you posts, you do not do fine in this society.

I recall you telling us in a post how your bar failed and you blamed it on outside forces....no fault of your own.

Yet other bars last for decades...even single bars owned by single people for those decades.

So no, you do not do fine in this society. So as opposed to adapting, you prefer to change it.

You need to come to terms with the motivating factors of your political positions.

To deny them does you no good.

50% of new businesses close.

Check it out.

And I am doing fine.

Got a new car, new job, I own a manhattan coop which I rent and I rent a huge apartment in Brooklyn.

but you blamed your failure on others.

That is one who has iussues with society as it is.

And you prefer to change it.

All of the rest? Irrelevant.

However, I am glad to see you got a new job. I know it was a long haul for you.....and I hope it gives you some peace of mind. Seriously.

Yeah..true.

I paid for power to be available all the time, yet the power would black out almost weekly.

That's part of the reason for the failure. As were other things, like a "by the drink" tax.

By the way..alot of other bars in the area..had that exact same problems..and closed shop.

And I don't get your bringing in personal shit into the thread.

 

[boedicca]

Only if you compare humans to all other animals on the basest level.

Sooner or later you're going to have to agree that human beings are quite different from all other animals.

I prefer the term inalienable rights over natural rights.

I like the term natural rights - it denotes something that preexists any form of government and is not granted by a government. Such rights are the birth right of every human, even if the society in which he is born violates them.

Inalienable rights cannot be separated from the individual. They are possessed by the mere act of being a human being not to be given or taken away by government or society

We are saying the same thing.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Not surprising that, even though the op was

What "rights" does nature give us?

rw's are yammering about the Constitution and Hitler.

 

[Sallow]

Sallow, owned once again.

You don't get "owned" by people declaring victory.

 

[Oddball]

What Shallow is doing here is basically reframing the idea of the divine right of kings (the overthrowing of such which was at the center of the American Revolution) to read the divine right of the mob.

For someone who so freely scoffs at Rand, he makes a perfect Wesley Mouch.

 

[Oddball]

Not surprising that, even though the op was

What "rights" does nature give us?

rw's are yammering about the Constitution and Hitler.

What happened you your yammering about the fecal cliff deal, chump?

 

[Sallow]

Only if you compare humans to all other animals on the basest level.

Sooner or later you're going to have to agree that human beings are quite different from all other animals.

I prefer the term inalienable rights over natural rights.

I like the term natural rights - it denotes something that preexists any form of government and is not granted by a government. Such rights are the birth right of every human, even if the society in which he is born violates them.

Inalienable rights cannot be separated from the individual. They are possessed by the mere act of being a human being not to be given or taken away by government or society

And that's definitely not true.

Nelson Mandela's "liberty" was taken away from him for several decades.

 

[DiamondDave]

Not surprising that, even though the op was

What "rights" does nature give us?

rw's are yammering about the Constitution and Hitler.

Again, you idiot troll

A right attributed to man and government can be just as easily taken away by man or government... A right attributed to 'nature' or 'god' or 'the creator' is portrayed to be above man or government, hence the recognition of this in the document empowering the government does not empower the government to take it away without dissolving the government

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So, whoever has the ability to seize and maintain power defines everyone's rights?

Bingo.

(watch this)

Is the Declaration of Independence a Founding Document?

Q:If you want to talk about something that has NO relationship to the OP, why don't you start a new thread?

A: Because you don't understand the OP. Just to refresh your memory, here it is again:

What "rights" does nature give us?

If you do start a new thread concerning the nature of the Constitution of the US, I would just love to join that discussion. Until then, however, I plan to discuss only the OP of THIS thread.

Hope this isn't tooooo complicated for you.

 

[dblack]

Not surprising that, even though the op was

What "rights" does nature give us?

rw's are yammering about the Constitution and Hitler.

That's because the question is incoherent*, so we can only guess what meaning was intended. We're assuming the OP is referring to the concept of natural (inalienable, god-given, etc...) rights that is referenced in the Constitution. That seems like a realistic assumption given the context of a political message board.

*(Nature doesn't 'give' us rights'. To ask such a question reveals a basic misunderstanding of the concept.)

 

[Sallow]

Bingo.

(watch this)

Is the Declaration of Independence a Founding Document?

Q:If you want to talk about something that has NO relationship to the OP, why don't you start a new thread?

A: Because you don't understand the OP. Just to refresh your memory, here it is again:

What "rights" does nature give us?

If you do start a new thread concerning the nature of the Constitution of the US, I would just love to join that discussion. Until then, however, I plan to discuss only the OP of THIS thread.

Hope this isn't tooooo complicated for you.

The question was also answered early on.

It's not a founding document in that no legislation is constructed from it..nor governance based on it.

It was a one shot thing.