The source of our rights (split from gun injury)

[dimreepr]

This shows that my rights do not come from government, but nature.

 

 

WTF try telling that to an average North Korean.

[waitforufo]

To my "This shows that my rights do not come from government, but nature." Dimreepr replied

 

WTF try telling that to an average North Korean.

The reason people condemn North Korea is that their government does not respect natural human rights. Do you disagree with this?

Edited October 21, 2015 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

To my "This shows that my rights do not come from government, but nature." Dimreepr replied

The reason people condemn North Korea is that their government does not respect natural human rights. Do you disagree with this?

 

 

Did you ever consider that you may have missed my point?

[waitforufo]

 

 

Did you ever consider that you may have missed my point?

Not in this case no. All human beings have natural human rights. Countries that to not recognize this fact are evil. Not mistaken but evil. That is why we condemn them. That is why we condemn ourselves when we also fall short. Do you not agree with this? Do you think human rights movements are misguided. It seems you must because you think human rights are simply the whim of government.

[Ten oz]

Not in this case no. All human beings have natural human rights. Countries that to not recognize this fact are evil. Not mistaken but evil. That is why we condemn them. That is why we condemn ourselves when we also fall short. Do you not agree with this? Do you think human rights movements are misguided. It seems you must because you think human rights are simply the whim of government.

Where do these "natural human rights" come from? Segregation just ended in the 60's, women national just got the right to vote in the 20's, and Same-Sex couple were just given the right to mary. Has the United States been evil this entire time or are the things I mentioned not natural rights on par with gun ownership?

[waitforufo]

Where do these "natural human rights" come from?

Where does your intellect come from? Where do your emotions come from? Where do your senses come from? Where does your physical body come from?

 

With your way of thinking, North Korea and ISIS are equivalent to the United States, England, Italy, Spain, or any modern western nation.

Segregation just ended in the 60's, women national just got the right to vote in the 20's, and Same-Sex couple were just given the right to mary. Has the United States been evil this entire time or are the things I mentioned not natural rights on par with gun ownership?

With respect to the things you mention, and many more, yes the United States government was and continues to be evil, as all governments are. That is why it citizens must continue to improve and stay focused on preserving and promoting natural human rights. Governments throughout history favor tyranny and the suppression of human rights. That often comes about when the suppression of human rights comes from the perceived good intentions of those who have not experienced or have forgotten tyranny That is why the United States, a nation founded on the principals on natural human rights, set up a government of checks and balances to hobble government and thereby tyranny. That is why we have the second amendment.

Edited October 22, 2015 by waitforufo

[Ten oz]

Where does you intellect come from? Where do your emotions come from? Where do your senses come from? Where does your physical body come from?

 

With your way of thinking, North Korea and ISIS are equivalent to the United States, England, Italy, Spain, or any modern western nation.

 

Rights, as designated and protected by governments, are legal documents. That is what the 2nd amendment is, law. If you are implying that above and beyond that it is a natural right it is a fair question to ask whom or what gives us that right? Because nature itself does not provide rights. Deer do not have a natural 2nd amendment right to bar arms to protect themselves from mountain lions.

 

 

With respect to the things you mention, and many more, yes the United States government was and continues to be evil, as all governments are. That is why it citizens must continue to improve and stay focused on preserving and promoting natural human rights. Governments throughout history favor tyranny and the suppression of human rights. That often comes about when the suppression of human rights comes from the perceived good intentions of those who have not experienced or have forgotten tyranny That is why the United States, a nation founded on the principals on natural human rights, set up a government of checks and balances to hobble government and thereby tyranny. That is why we have the second amendment.

 

So the U.S. is and has always been evil as have all governments been which is why the U.S. is " nation founded on the principals on natural human rights"? Which explains why we have a 2nd amendment?

[waitforufo]

Rights, as designated and protected by governments, are legal documents. That is what the 2nd amendment is, law.

 

No they are not. No modern intelligent person believes that. Wake up.

If you are implying that above and beyond that it is a natural right it is a fair question to ask whom or what gives us that right?

Since the enlightenment people have understood that human beings have natural rights. It's too bad your education system didn't impart you with that knowledge. Your rights come from your nature. You cannot be fully human without your natural rights. I can't believe this concept is up for discussion between educated people.

 

Deer do not have a natural 2nd amendment right to bar arms to protect themselves from mountain lions.

Deer are not human beings. It is the nature of deer to be eaten by mountain lions. Mountain lions are their natural predators. Why is that true? The above is a stupid argument.

So the U.S. is and has always been evil as have all governments been which is why the U.S. is " nation founded on the principals on natural human rights"? Which explains why we have a 2nd amendment?

All governments are evil with respect to there desire to suppress human rights. What people on earth has never had there natural human rights suppressed by government? None. Yes, that is why we have the second amendment.

 

Here is an example of the power of the second amendment in the US.

 

Edited October 22, 2015 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

Since the enlightenment people have understood that human beings have natural rights. It's too bad your education system didn't impart you with that knowledge. Your rights come from your nature. You cannot be fully human without your natural rights. I can't believe this concept is up for discussion between educated people.

 

 

 

Who was enlightened? And why did they come to that conclusion? And, LOL, how are we not fully human without them?

[MonDie]

 

Deer are not human beings. It is the nature of deer to be eaten by mountain lions. Mountain lions are their natural predators. Why is that true? The above is a stupid argument.

 

There is no clear line between the natural versus the artificial. If the artificial is made or influenced by man, then many things are partially natural and partially artificial. If it has to do with natural versus unnatural behaviour, even this is unclear. Even behaviours that weren't specifically selected for by natural selection, such as ideas arrived at through the intellect, are still underpinned by things that were selected for by nature, namely intellect. One is tempted by a slippery slope concluding that everything we do is really just a different expression of our nature, for it is not obvious where the line is drawn or whether there even is a dichotomy between the natural and the artificial.

[swansont]

No they are not. No modern intelligent person believes that. Wake up.

 

Patently false, and you've admitted as much already, unless you're invoking the no true Scotsman fallacy. It is true that there are countries, peopled by modern and intelligent humans, who do not hold that everyone has these rights simply by virtue of existing. Quite a few people do believe in natural rights, and it is fortunately becoming more widespread, but it is a recently-implemented concept and is by no means universal.

 

Rights in many "developed"countries are protected and assured by government and codified in documents, but there are also places where insisting you have certain rights is not going to get you anywhere but a cell.

[waitforufo]

Quite a few people do believe in natural rights, and it is fortunately becoming more widespread, but it is a recently-implemented concept and is by no means universal.

 

You say fortunately. Why?

You say recently. How recent?

[puppypower]

An interesting contrast, in terms of the meaning of rights, is to contrast the right to bear arms with the right to have an abortion. The right to be bear arms affords one the option to own guns or not. Poor people have the right to own guns. If a poor person can't afford a gun, the government does not buy guns for them even though they have the right to own one. This right to bear arms implies one has the option to own one, but it is up to each person, regardless of social status, to be self providing. It was designed for self reliant adults.

 

The right to abortion is not a right of the same kind, because it does not imply self sufficiency, since it has a connection to government funding. The government will pay for abortions but not guns for the poor. If all public sector funding was removed from abortion, but women could still have an abortion on demand, their right is not violated. It is the same as the 2nd amendment.

 

A right affords one an option to act, but one is expected to be self sufficient. This original definition may have been connected to only white men voting in the beginning, with those men more self sufficient. The right to abortion is a misnomer since it involved lack of self sufficiency.

Edited October 22, 2015 by puppypower

[swansont]

You say fortunately. Why?

Because in my opinion it's a good thing. There are rights everyone should have, but some don't.

 

 

You say recently. How recent?

The existence of the US, at least, and that was only a partial implementation. The idea, of course, predates that. Did anyone else widely implement natural rights prior to the US?

 

 

The right to abortion is not a right of the same kind, because it does not imply self sufficiency, since it has a connection to government funding. The government will pay for abortions but not guns for the poor.

 

Um, no. It is illegal for the federal government to fund elective abortion in the US. Has been since 1976.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

[waitforufo]

Because in my opinion it's a good thing. There are rights everyone should have, but some don't.

 

The existence of the US, at least, and that was only a partial implementation. The idea, of course, predates that. Did anyone else widely implement natural rights prior to the US?

Here are a couple of links regarding implementation of natural rights outside the US. I read a good book on the subject a few years back. I'll see if I can find it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/chap3a.html

 

The Wiki link gives the dates for the age of enlightenment between 1620 and 1789. The start was more scientific and the end was more philosophical. The primary goal of enlightenment philosophy was to restructure society based on reason rather than faith. This was the philosophical springboard for both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Both documents, taking from enlightenment philosophy, considered human rights to be natural and inalienable. Enlightenment philosophy held that the primary purpose of government was to protect and promote the natural inalienable rights of individuals. Hence the bill of rights.

 

As western civilization fails, so do the ideals of the Enlightenment. Just look at the ignorance of dimreepr. Sad really.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The book is called "The Great Upheaval" by Jay Winik. ISBN 978-0-06-0083314-4

Edited October 22, 2015 by waitforufo

[swansont]

Here are a couple of links regarding implementation of natural rights outside the US. I read a good book on the subject a few years back. I'll see if I can find it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/chap3a.html

 

The Wiki link gives the dates for the age of enlightenment between 1620 and 1789. The start was more scientific and the end was more philosophical. The primary goal of enlightenment philosophy was to restructure society based on reason rather than faith. This was the philosophical springboard for both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Both documents, taking from enlightenment philosophy, considered human rights to be natural and inalienable. Enlightenment philosophy held that the primary purpose of government was to protect and promote the natural inalienable rights of individuals. Hence the bill of rights.

 

 

Glad you agree.

[waitforufo]

I'm curious to what you are agreeing. Does the constitution recognize my natural rights or does the constitution create my rights? Also, what was the intention of the founders? How does the ninth amendment play into your opinion?

[Wolfhnd]

Anyone who believes that rights are protected by the government and the legal documents it is formulated under needs to read this utopian document.

 

Constitution of the Soviet Union

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Soviet_Constitution

 

Then read this article

 

Human rights in the Soviet Union

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union#Freedom_of_literary_and_scientific_expression

 

That said democracy is not sufficient to protect human rights that is why we have a constitution in the U.S. that is suppose to protect the rights of minorities from the interest of the majority. Democracy can easily become mob rule and originally citizens were protected against mob rule by only allowing certain people of property and social status to vote in a representative system. Over time the right to vote has been more or less extended to all adults. My question is how we are currently protected from the failings of a democracy to ensure minority opinion rights?

Edited October 27, 2015 by Wolfhnd

[swansont]

 

That said democracy is not sufficient to protect human rights that is why we have a constitution in the U.S. that is suppose to protect the rights of minorities from the interest of the majority. Democracy can easily become mob rule and originally citizens were protected against mob rule by only allowing certain people of property and social status to vote in a representative system. Over time the right to vote has been more or less extended to all adults. My question is how we are currently protected from the failings of a democracy to ensure minority opinion rights?

 

We trust that the government will enforce its rules. At least on a broad scope, even while some pockets of the government subvert the rules, such as with the voting rights you mentioned.

[Ten oz]

 

 

No they are not. No modern intelligent person believes that. Wake up.

Since the enlightenment people have understood that human beings have natural rights. It's too bad your education system didn't impart you with that knowledge. Your rights come from your nature. You cannot be fully human without your natural rights. I can't believe this concept is up for discussion between educated people.

 

Deer are not human beings. It is the nature of deer to be eaten by mountain lions. Mountain lions are their natural predators. Why is that true? The above is a stupid argument.

All governments are evil with respect to there desire to suppress human rights. What people on earth has never had there natural human rights suppressed by government? None. Yes, that is why we have the second amendment.

 

Here is an example of the power of the second amendment in the US.

 

You still have not explained where these "natural rights" come from? You just keep stating that they exist and are recognized. You also haven't explained how exactly the rights you speak of are specifically protected by guns. Surely any weapon capable of killing people would be sufficient. Why not hand hand grenades?

 

How are you defining evil? Is evil also a natural process or an artificial creation?

[waitforufo]

You still have not explained where these "natural rights" come from? You just keep stating that they exist and are recognized. You also haven't explained how exactly the rights you speak of are specifically protected by guns. Surely any weapon capable of killing people would be sufficient. Why not hand hand grenades?

 

How are you defining evil? Is evil also a natural process or an artificial creation?

I have stated it many many times. Natural rights come from nature. Just like human beings come from nature. They are an essential part of our being. This is a position widely held by philosophers during the enlightenment. The same philosophers that inspired the American revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States. I didn't make the concept up. Have you studied no history or philosophy?

 

So I have given an explanation whether you accept that explanation or not. If you think I am violating the rules of this forum, please report this post to the moderator.

 

Firearms allow me to defend myself. Self defense is a natural right.

 

Believing that my rights come from government is evil.

 

Glad you agree.

 

I'm curious to what you are agreeing. Does the constitution recognize my natural rights or does the constitution create my rights? Also, what was the intention of the founders? How does the ninth amendment play into your opinion?

Swansont,

I was directing these questions at you. Perhaps you missed it.

[Strange]

I have stated it many many times. Natural rights come from nature.

 

How do you know which are a natural rights and which are not? Can you make this determination in a way that is not subjective; i.e. that everyone will agree on?

 

For example, is freedom to marry who you wish a natural right? Is same-sex marriage a natural right (a lot of people don't seem to think it is). Is the right to marry an animal a natural right? If not why not?

[swansont]

 

 

Swansont,

I was directing these questions at you. Perhaps you missed it.

 

 

I didn't understand the question. I said "glad you agree", and you asked me what I was agreeing to. I guess the simplest answer is that I agree with what I said (which is basically a tautology), that our government was an application of the philosophy developed prior to the revolution.

 

And I assumed you agreed, because you said "[The enlightenment] was the philosophical springboard for both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States"

 

The US Constitution is based on the idea that these rights are yours. The government does not grant them. However, this is a premise (i.e. an assumption) on which it is based, stemming from the philosophy. It doesn't really explain much, though I'm sure the philosophy of the enlightenment goes into greater detail on that. But that, too, will be based some premise or set of premises.

 

So saying natural rights come from nature doesn't really explain anything. It, too, is more like a tautology.

 

Are humans the only ones who have natural rights?

 

Do you really have a right if you are not permitted to exercise it?

[Ten oz]

I have stated it many many times. Natural rights come from nature. Just like human beings come from nature. They are an essential part of our being. This is a position widely held by philosophers during the enlightenment. The same philosophers that inspired the American revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States. I didn't make the concept up. Have you studied no history or philosophy?

 

So I have given an explanation whether you accept that explanation or not. If you think I am violating the rules of this forum, please report this post to the moderator.

 

Firearms allow me to defend myself. Self defense is a natural right.

 

Believing that my rights come from government is evil.

 

 

Swansont,

I was directing these questions at you. Perhaps you missed it.

Nature is a process. It is neither good or evil. How does nature award rights?

 

If the right is to defend oneself why must it be a gun? Why not a grenade?

[MonDie]

I could argue that murder is natural. Chimps murder eachother. Humans murder eachother. Should murder be a right? Why or why not?