• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is a "Right"???

Tricky said:
Thst's odd. It seems we're debating it right now (and you're losing). But even if you weren't having your butt handed to you on a platter with a sides of crow, hat and humble pie, you cannot possibly deny that it is being debated.

(Well, okay, you can deny it, but you'll look more ridiculous than PeeWee Herman trying to explain what he was doing in that theater.)
Click to expand...

Winners do not need to declare victory. That's what losers do.
 
Border Reiver said:
That's right - you do not have those rights unless the society in which you live agrees you do and is prepared to recognize them.

Different legal systems - different rights.

Rights, being a legal construct, cannot exist outside of a legal structure. Without societal rules there is no way that your "natural" rights can be enforced other than whatever direct physical force you can bring to bear to do so - your "right" to liberty stops where a stronger person makes you his or her slave, your right to property extends only to that which you can prevent others from taking.

What allows those rights to be recognized and supported is a society that agrees to certain underlying core values (rights) and has a system in place to protect its members and resolve disputes between them that are not simply seeing who is the better fighter.
Click to expand...

So Might makes Right??

You just don't get it. Even in a totalitarian state, natural human rights exist. I
"The God that Gave us Life Gave us Liberty at the same time. Though tyrants may destroy, they cannot dis-join them." -- Thomas Jefferson
 
Craig24 said:
This provides an opportunity to quote a passage that has become a favorite of mine: "There is no right to a value that another person has to provide." When you understand that rights refer to independent action (an action you alone judge as proper to take and that requires nothing of anyone else), you will understand how a right to property (properly obtained) cannot violate your right to take the stuff other men have because that isn't a right at all.

Permit me to quote from another forum the following brilliant observation:
Click to expand...

I think James Holmes might agree.
 
Perhaps you can enlighten me with regards to the post you quoted.

What differentiates "properly obtained" property from property "improperly obtained"?

What constitutes ownership?

What is to be done with property found to be "improperly" obtained?

Also, since you assert that property rights are a gift of our "creator", did they exist before they were written down?
 
I have an ill-conceived thought experiment to explore inalienable property rights.

A man washed up on an uninhabited continent sees a rock. "That is my rock now" he thinks. Is it his?

He enjoys his time with the rock but soon a ship comes past and he has to swim out to it. He has to leave the rock and decides to come back and get it later.

Some months later another person is marooned there after a drunken blimp incident and sees the same rock. "That is my rock now" he thinks, and uses it for a pillow. He regrets his decision the next day and angrily throws it into the sea where it is swallowed by a whale which dies three days later and sinks to the bottom of the Marianas trench.

Has the first man been deprived of his rightful property and should Drunky McBlimp be charged with a crime?

Told you it was ill-conceived. Now to get into my blimp. I'm a-goin' rock-huntin'.
 
well i don't know about the USA, but my rights are not from a god, they are from my felow citizens and ancestors.
 
Robert Prey said:
So Might makes Right??

You just don't get it. Even in a totalitarian state, natural human rights exist.
Click to expand...

So if I inform the people of North Korea that there has been a terrible misunderstanding, their internet filters will suddenly unblock themselves?

Look, I get that you want people to have license to act as they please but that's all it is, a want. Even if you establish it as an objective moral truth, it still means nothing in the real world.

"The God that Gave us Life Gave us Liberty at the same time. Though tyrants may destroy, they cannot dis-join them." -- Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

Sally Hemings: Are you talking to me Tom?
Jefferson: Quiet you. Back in bed.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
So Might makes Right??

You just don't get it. Even in a totalitarian state, natural human rights exist. I
"The God that Gave us Life Gave us Liberty at the same time. Though tyrants may destroy, they cannot dis-join them." -- Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

In essence, yes.

Rights are a legal and philosophical construct and like any such thing have no physical existence - they cannot exist without a legal system to function in and to give them form and substance.

If a society does not have the philosophical construct for something - say individual ownership of land, then you cannot in that society own land. Conflicts between societies with different legal systems lead to confusion in this regard.

If "natural rights" exist what are they?
How are they protected?
 
Robert Prey said:
I think James Holmes might agree.
Click to expand...

So, Mr. Holmes had the right to use his property in the manner that he saw fit and society should not violate his liberty by confinemnent?

Or do we presume that such rights have limits put in place by society and that such limits are justified by the need to balance individual rights with other people's rights and the needs of society?
 
BenBurch said:
Reminds me of something I have heard before;

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK
Click to expand...

Exactly! Under Robert Prey's understanding, people like Kim Jung Ill and King George III were well with in their rights to act as tyrants since they rightfully inherited and owned their respective lands. Indeed, the Founding Fathers trespassed greatly by violently stealing King George's familial land-holdings and personal property.
 
Last edited:
Tony said:
Exactly! Under Robert Prey's understanding, people like Kim Jung Ill and King George III were well with in their rights to act as tyrants since they rightfully inherited and owned their respective lands. Indeed, the Founding Fathers trespassed greatly by violently stealing King George's familial land-holdings and personal property.
Click to expand...

To be accurate, George was head of state but the Britsh worked with a constitutional monarchy. He didn't have any landholdings in the US he was drawing income from. The FF's beef was with the colonies not being represented in Parliament while being subjected to what they saw as onerous taxes and the denial of their ability to expand west due to treaties with former First Nation military allies.
 
Border Reiver said:
In essence, yes.

Rights are a legal and philosophical construct and like any such thing have no physical existence - they cannot exist without a legal system to function in and to give them form and substance.

If a society does not have the philosophical construct for something - say individual ownership of land, then you cannot in that society own land. Conflicts between societies with different legal systems lead to confusion in this regard.

If "natural rights" exist what are they?
How are they protected?
Click to expand...


"What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, every where. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors."

-- Abraham Lincoln
--September 11, 1858 Speech at Edwardsville
 
Robert Prey said:
"What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, every where. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors."

-- Abraham Lincoln
--September 11, 1858 Speech at Edwardsville
Click to expand...

So, in essence, you only have freedom if you believe in freedom.

I also note that this quote comes from a man who suspends the right to habeus corpus.

"To the meaningless French ideals "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" we oppose the German realities " Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery". Otto Von Bismark
 
KingMerv00 said:
So are natural rights are subject to government intervention or not? Make up your mind.
Click to expand...


Natural rights are not subject to government intervention. But tyranny happens. I'm trying to take your question seriously, because you may also be a victim of a government school.
 
Robert Prey said:
Natural rights are not subject to government intervention. But tyranny happens.
Click to expand...

You weren't talking about tyrrany. You were talking about war, and you said government's suspension of habeus corpus was reasonable. So that was a suspension of 'natural rights' by a government which you feel was reasonable in the circumstances. Yes?


I'm just trying to get my head around what you mean. As far as I can tell, your definition of 'natural rights' is simply a list of rights you believe everyone everywhere is morally entitled to whether they get them or not. But you accept that in certain circumstances it's not morally wrong for authority to suspend some of those rights.

Do you believe the rights which make the list are absolute and self-evident in some way? If so, can you explain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom