Inherent rights, do they exist.

No. Rights do not require a grant. They are. Government is the enjoinment of the group of right holders to ensure that said rights are protected. I understand that this is not what the collective folk want folks to understand, it is, none the less, the truth of it. And when you recognize that given your theory of rights, said rights can be just as easily be denied. Which is the fallacy of what rights are. And because you folks joined together, you created the very slavery you publicly decry, but you invented given your set of process. That you don't get that is, not surprising.

 

Because they exist in the abstract. But they must be granted to be realized. Human beings have a right to freedom. Possessing that right does not ensure its expression.

 

Hmm.. No. Again, rights can be enshrined as they are in this country, but our government doesn't grant us rights. If our government grants, it's acting as the regent, like a King might, who chooses which rights you then get. F that.

 

No, the evidence that guns cause crime is correlative at best and has not been demonstrated to be causal. It mostly consists of comparing crime and gun ownership between nations with different laws, and fails to address other dynamics such as population density, poverty, cultural differences or violence pre-existing to gun laws. Preventing mass shootings, while critical, is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. The US has abominable mental health provisions, lacking any incentivization for the disturbed to seek treatment and indeed often decentivizing them from doing so by offering them to be treated as 'dangerous', second class citizens, similar to criminals with limited rights should they turn out with certain diagnosis regardless whether they've committed any crimes.

 

show me that those were "inalienable rights" of slaves and native americans. if the riights can be alienable from one they can be alienable from all and are therefore NOT "natural rights. " .

 

Question for you. When african tribes were doing war on themselves, and taking slaves, or when american indian tribes were as well, do you suppose that they believed in their own freedoms? Your what about ism is just that. If you lost in war, you became a slave. In each of your examples. What do you suppose is your point knowing this?

 

You seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between an abstraction and reality. Governments can and do control the ability of humans to experience the abstract rights they possess. Are Chinese Uighurs free in practice?

 

Gosh, as if reality and you ever met. Men are free. Simple statement. China abuses them because they believe they have to right to abuse them because they choose to not grant them the same rights and privileges they reserve for themselves. In much the same way their party also have more rights than their people. That process can only exist when the group choose that they have the pejorative right to distribute rights as they see fit. And here you are, full throated endorsement of that.

 

Rights as we know them today are ideas that came about as a result of human history working its way out of barbarism and into a modern outlook on the value of a human being. Many famous philosophers, Kings and leaders contributed to this starting with the Magna Carta and ending with more modern "rights". The state provides the power to enforce or deny these rights. Whether it is a secular or religious state is an artifact of history. We have seen that the most liberal version is a secular state. Religious states tend to limit the type of rights they will protect. The law is the language of these rights, philosophers tell the story but its governments that write it down.

 

Within your pretzel logic reply you contradict yourself by saying men are simultaneously free and not free. That's not so much a simple statement as it is an illogical one.

Also, you're trying too hard to work a false accusation about what I believe in your answer. Try to be more subtle next time.

 

the only "natural right" that i see in your examples is darwinism.

 

No, actually I didn't. Men are free. Period. Full stop. Your narrative of rights granted by government is the problem here. You fully endorse the idea, which underpins the abuse of the folks in China, for the stated reasons. Why are you so unprepared to respond to that? This isn't my issue, it's yours. Explain why you are working so hard to convince folks that only government can give people rights. That is the lie you are pushing here. Why?

 

In what way? Even Darwin wouldn't agree with your assessment. Survival of the fittest doesn't consider inherent or natural rights because it wasn't trying to address them. The rights of men are imbued in them. That they are born to be free, with liberty. That is the point. When free men assemble to form government, they do so because they recognize that those freedoms and liberties must be protected. And while government can be the agent of tyranny, their hope was to create one that wasn't. Read the Declaration of Independence. It very clearly outlines what was unacceptable about being ruled by the king, and tyrant of England at the time. Democrats would tell you that your rights aren't your own. Why? So they can be taken from you by a government they wish to create to enforce their tyranny. A movie as old as time.

 

Show me how they could not be removed or altered by government.
Oh and did you notice this eloquent speech..
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
was also written by humans. Humans who had no more right to define unalienable than the current humans.

 

I don't suppose it is too much to ask that you actually read the quote is it? It says, exactly, what i am. Born free, enjoin to create government to protect your rights. No where in your response to you even try to address those foundational ideas. Why? You can't. When you fail at basic stuff, there isn't much room here....

 

Again, you're trying much too hard to accuse me of holding beliefs I don't possess by working it in to your specious, illogical reply.

"Men are free. Period. Full stop."



These Chinese Uighurs aren't free. Unless you think they freely chose to dress in blue jump suits and live behind barbed wire. I don't.

 

I read every word and while I support the ideals it does not make it anyone more valuable than any other humans definition of unalienable rights. This topic is not about what those rights should be, whether they be wealth health and happiness or owning a gun. This thread is about whether they are immutable, intrinsic, inalienable. The founding fathers had no more right or ability to set future rights than the current elected government.
Nothing made by man cannot be changed by man.

 

Clearly, they are not. They are being oppressed by the Chinese government, aren't they. (who bankrolled Biden again?) Gasp, and they aren't even socially distanced. The horror. And the real horror is that by your logic, China is within their rights as a government to take the Ulghurs rights from them. This is you theory, own it. Explain to us again why your theory doesn't create the oppression the Chinese are now engaged in. So, you tell us you support the foundation that allows China to exhibit this behavior, and here you are, saying that what the Chinese are doing is based on the prescription you provided. You're logic and your commentary here are super not helping you out in this conversation anymore. You may want to "phone a friend" or something...

 

Yes, rights are immutable. Simple answer even though you are either unwilling or unable to process that.

 

Unless you are god, that is just your opinion. My opinion is that immutable rights are simply those that no human would surrender for any price. Such as the right to life and maybe the right to be free.

 

Hmm.. ok. So, option two, unable to process. we'll just go with that.

 

There is a term for espousing the belief, "Men are free. Period. Full stop" while acknowledging the Uighurs are not. It's called doublethink.
The source of your confusion regarding my beliefs is coming in to focus. I did not say China is within their rights to deny those of the Uighur's. Only that it is a fact they are denying the Uighur's rights. It's not that complicated. Why are you struggling with the concept?

 

I think the people can agree on their rights and vote for them in a referendum. These then can't be changed by the government, only by another referendum, with a high bar set, like the US has for its constitution. The bill of rights put out by the EU is pretty good and can be adopted by other countries.
Talking of China: a dictatorship where there are no rights.

 

Correct. just add, unwilling to be bullied by a prig.

 

That's all wishful thinking. You're attempting to circumvent reality, much as religious folks do, by claiming that your belief in something makes it real. Believing that we all have these rights no matter what does not make it so. That's about as tangible as smoke.

We can believe in ideals but they don't become real without action. That's what rights are. They are a belief in an ideal made real by action. No action, no rights. No government or enforcement, no rights. You can believe you have them all you want, but if you do not exist where there is a system that takes that abstract ideal and turns it into reality, you have no rights. Doesn't matter if that sounds good, or sounds terrible and depressing, or authoritarian. It is as it is.