Inherent rights, do they exist.

The men who wrote, "all men are created equal", didn't even believe what they wrote. Because they must not hold that to be inherent.
It's not some men, it's the men who wrote the words and then showed just the opposite.
Proving all men are not created equal and we all don't have the same rights.

Why do we have to work on right that are Natural or inherent?
The very definition is not subject to man's laws.

As another poster who believes in those rights posted.

"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights)."

So what it really comes down to, is what rights will society allow.

 

No, it depends on what a people will allow a society to deteriorate to. Oppressed people sooner or later fight for the rights that are being suppressed. The beauty of the paper those old men left us is it gave us political recourse without actually going to a shooting war. Failing that it gave us the last resort in the 2nd Amendment.

 

That PROJECTION is HILARIOUS!

 

Whether you feel you were born with these rights is irrelevant, the government can still take them away of grant them.
But that aside, do you think all humans are born with the same rights or just American humans?

 

This explains your position very clearly, thank you.
Do you think God included weapons that kill in his blessing to man? Only I thought Jesus said we should turn the other cheek.

 

Not many people would fight to death for their clothes. The things I added were IMO things that were equivalent to the right for life, I.E things you would fight to the death to try and protect.

 

What is the difference between invisible and imaginary?

 

Just because we cannot see something does not mean that it does not exist.

We have a limited ability to directly observe the electromagnetic spectrum but we can use other means to detect those aspects that we cannot observe. You cannot see the lines of force from a magnet but you can observe the effects of the magnetic lines of force. We can use goggles to observe objects within the infrared spectrum and sensitized plates to observe the effects of X-rays.

OTOH things that are imaginary cannot be detected and/or observed.

Therein lies the difference.

 

...and the explanation for why some things burned and some did not used to be phlogiston. We sometimes have names that detour understanding of phenomena.
Imaginary and invisible often do go together. For those imagining, they "detect".
"Rights" is a nice term for describing something aspired to. Where they exist should be obvious. The only mystery concerning them is what it serves to some people to insist on a particular idea of their existing elsewhere as well.

 

You want a religious debate or a political one? I think Heaven has a military arm too.

History is full of power structures that exploited populations for their own welfare but they always fail and are overthrown by people who believe they have been wronged. Those wrongs usually will translate to what we call human rights. It's why we don't have slavery, it's why we have buildings burning in some of our cities today, people are demanding their rights be honored. If you don't believe in rights that's ok because human events roll on. People who do believe will battle with those who they perceive as encroaching and you will benefit or lose as circumstances dictate. Your rights will still be there, you just concede them to the power structure.

 

I believe they are human rights, everybody is born with them. They aren't free.

 

Not even all American humans. Women were not give the same rights as the Males.
Natives in the country were killed for land. Then the survivors were rounded up and put on a small plot of land and told to stay there.
Gays never had the rights that non gays had until about a decade ago.

 

Many have died trying to protect their homestead. And I don't see property rights as a Natural right. Life is about it. And like you said, one's family. But that would be their right.

 

I agree entirely. The argument is not about whether certain things should be accepted human rights, but whether these rights are inherent.
existing in something as a permanent
For me if they can be removed even temporarily, they cannot be inherent.

Its certainly an area for debate. Many have died fighting over a spilled drink, I guess you have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere.

 

What do you consider inherent?

 

I guess that's why this thread is 15 pp long.

 

Not sure its the right word in the first place

Most of which is "Yes it is" "No it isn't"

 

Because it's all a personal opinion.
Further cementing the idea there is no Natural right. But for one's life.

Even the founders didn't believe what they wrote about inherent rights. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, while they engaged in slave trade. Denying humans those basic rights they claimed were inherent.