Are Basic, Natural Law Rights More Than America Can Understand And Entertain?

Yep.

I spent a few years exposing covert agents on conservative forums. Koch bros contractors performing cognitive infiltration and making a segment of the public view political events in certain ways only. Shut down 3 tea party forums.

At a forth I document exposing groups of covert agents attempting to deal with sustained exposures. Busted! They were pissed off too.

http://algoxy.com/poly/tea.party.manipulation.html

 

The interesting thing about natural rights is that if they are not mutually beneficial, then they can be discarded. if free speech is something a person doesn't want, then they have given up their own right to freedom of speech. If a person doesn't believe in the right to property, then they give up their own right to property.

This is why we have prisons. They are for antisocial people who cannot play nicely with others, so they lose their rights. This is why we have guns. If somebody poses a threat to life and limb, they can be killed.

Just remember that the next time you talk about how rights are just social constructs, so they don't exist. They are simply rules that make up a civil society. Not everybody wants to live in a civil society, so they have no right to be part of a civil society.

 

Natural rights, of course , come from God. If you discount God, they naturally come from government. For instance, if you have property, it is only because government allows you to keep it. The growing so-called "Social" Democracy sees things that way.

 

Absolutely of and for the people, who must under how the constitution makes them the “rightful masters of the congress and the court”.

The 9th Amendment is the exclusive right of the people to define constitutional intent and right. Congress, the court, state representatives, none has retained rights that are not enumerated.

Time to use our right. ONLY A MAJORITY OF CITIZENS IN A STATE, then a supermajority of states, can do this. It is done through Article V. Use it to perfect the 1st Amendment.

 

Eh. Mixed bag.

Most people will strongly defend freedom of speech. The right to vote. Trial by jury. Right to other people's property.

If you took away entitlements a lot of natural rights talk would start.

 

What right are you asking for?
Or what right to do you think has been taken away, that you think is wrong?

We did establish that right to life or life sustaining rights, are the only natural rights?

 

IMO, those are not natural rights. But rights granted by the gov't/people. With the gov't as the enforcing mechanism.

 

There are no natural rights as you cannot get an ought from an is. Normative claims are inherently subjective.

But you should act as if they are not.

Similar to how you should act as if time is a flat circle even though it isn't.

 

The is/ought problem does not undermine natural rights. It just requires careful consideration of the language one uses and how one constructs an ethical framework from natural rights.

 

How do you dictate how people ought to act without normative claims?

 

After perusing this thread, I think so. Too many seem to believe rights come from government or, even worse, a document created by a bunch of dead men.

Government is inherently in violation of natural rights. The Founding Fathers probably knew this (right to abolish government) and rejected the conclusion, as most do, for pragmatic reasons.

 

Natural law doesn't dictate anything. It accepts as fact that every individual owns his or herself. Though, if you find that difficult, you could say that it's more goal oriented. If you hold that man owns himself, then you ought to subscribe to natural rights as the only ethical framework which provides objective moral classifications for all political interactions.

 

Ownership is a right to refuse use to others. Which is a normative claim. People ought not to use my property, people ought not to trespass, etc. These are all normative claims.

For natural law to be consistent and meaningful it has to be discoverable as phenomena. From where else do you derive knowledge? Descriptive claims like "my hair is red" are categorically different to normative claims like "you ought not to cut off my hair".

There is no associated phenomena you can refer to to make the normative claim true. It is your opinion. Maybe a very strongly held opinion, but it is not objectively true in the same way the descriptive claim is.

We can go out into the world and place a spectrometer up to my hair and determine that my hair emits light of 690nm wavelength.

None of this means normative claims are trash, just that they're personal and not true or false in the same way as descriptive claims.

At the end of the day, we're on our own when it comes to ethics. All you can do is be a good honest person of strong conviction. It's a continual battle.

I do think the best way to bring about the world you want is to act AS IF normative claims are objectively true. Just as you should act as if you're in Groundhog Day and try to pursue the best version of yourself. That doesn't mean reincarnation is an actual thing, it's just a belief of utility.

 

Natural rights are instinct. more specifically, positive civil instinct that are commonly recognized. Hence, common law.

Yes, those rights are enumerated, but life will need an unlimited number of rights if we are to survive and evolve.

"Your rights are who you are, your rights are what you are, your rights are in your DNA - and the government can, quite frankly, get over it." - Sen. Rand Paul, MD

How exactly, did the framers intend for the people to create the unity needed to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights, if they did not intend that freedom of speech serve that PURPOSE?

Since 1792 the PURPOSE of free speech has been abridged. The torys paid people off to exclude the language that would see the right serve the needed purpose in society.

 

Biologists have observed instinct that controls behaviors in all creatures. Phylogenetic DNA. Such DNA that dictates behavior likely to cause survival and evolution were deemed LAW, to empower survival and evolution.

 

Natural rights or law come from DNA, our instinct. When such instinct benefits the species, it was deemed law, to help assure it did such.

 

Oops, wants and needs are separate. Natural law is about need.

 

Yes, that is a descriptive claim verified by experience. Associated observable phenomena make it true.

The whole point is that you can't get from that descriptive fact to a normative one. Psychopaths for instance have no problem thieving or murdering.

 

Who put the DNA in us?

 

Hmmm, establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm of historical, national law, the constitution of our republic is especiallly directed at behavior.

Natural law with behavior consistent with it is inherently normative and THE standard is already or always has been in America. Perhaps not conscious, but that is the nature of natural law,

Making it conscious requires it is normative. Normal people can accept it. LOL!

 

I agree with everything you've said, I have a lot of respect and admiration for the rights and traditions of the early US. That doesn't make them embedded in the fabric of the universe.

 

I think we agree strongly.

The framers were faced with creeping tyranny and tried to accommodate adaptations needed for the people to be free to adapt, survival and evolve.

And yes, their careful choice of words, alter or abolish, supports very reasoned unity, indeed, peaceful and effective unity.

 

Contrast that measured moderation with the French alternative.

 

In context, the term “universe” as a label includes our conscious and unconscious existence. Phylogentic DNA is definitely uniformly spread through the herds of humans unconsciously, but making that conscious within the herd mentality of current society requires, or is one of the vital PURPOSES of free speech.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

You cannot jump from descriptive facts to normative claims. I like free speech, indeed I am a most radical free speech absolutist. That doesn't mean I think my admiration of free speech is objectively correct or embedded in the fabric of the universe. It is a strongly held subjective opinion.