Do we have "natural" rights?

The end result is the same thing...by not taking it away from you, they are granting it to you. The government has the power to take it away.

So it is really just semantics. Your rights are still granted by the governments actions. They have the power to take the rights away, which means they get the final say.

You got it when the government decided not to take it away.

 

So what? The fact that you personally consider them thugs does not mean his rights were violated. And if they were violated, his family has recourse.

 

congress didnt!

they leave that up to the states countys and municipalities

 

I have no freedom of speech without a Government??

As I've repeatedly stated, we all have these freedoms...every single human being on Earth.

But, within human society, Governments can AND do restrict those freedoms. <--- this is key!!!

In the US, we have the first Amendment which says Congress can't abridge those freedoms (though there are laws which do anyway)...and in other countries like China or North Korea, those freedoms are restricted even further.

We ALL have those freedoms (natural human rights)...Governments then restrict them.

 

wel there is a reason this sort of thing happens. I was being generous.

 

I don't have any freedom without a Politician, King or Dictator existing and then NOT taking those freedoms from me??

*facepalm*

utter lunacy

 

You only have it with the government's consent, since the government has the ability to take it away.

Using that logic, you also have the freedom to rape and murder. What is stopping you from exercising that freedom if not a government?

 

If I'm the last person on Earth, do I have freedom of speech?

If I'm the last of two people, do I have freedom of speech or must I ask him to bestow it on me?

Why do you have this belief that you only get freedoms when a Politician, King, or Dictator provides them to you?

ok, I'm going to try again, because it's clear you haven't read through this thread.

Here is my view:

Natural human rights are merely the freedom to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't harm another person....you have free speech, the freedom of religion, etc.

In human society, Governments can AND do restrict those rights.

Governments ALSO enact laws and provide legal rights...thus enforcing laws against rape and murder.

this is not a difficult concept...

 

You're using words that will get you in trouble. Experiments aren't about proving a theory "real," you conduct them to test a theory... explore it's edges and show where it breaks down so you can discard or refine it. But like the sculpture who tried to emulate a man by taking away "everything that wasn't the man" you never get to the reality under your theory -- you just aproximate it.

Atomic theory or the theory of gravity, these are simply the best models we have today. Even the most zealous supporters of these theories understand they are just theories, that they are no more real than the shadows on Plato's cave.

What if both of them were "right," but neither had considered that gravity is different at different altitudes? What if one was more precise? If a third guy comes up with a more precise experiment tomorrow, does that mean the second guy was never "right" or did he just become "wrong" after the new experiment? Or did he become "wrong" a year later, when the consensus of researchers came to believe in the new experiment?

You really should look up his gold foil experiment and the debates which resulted from it. Science is about coming up with theories and testing them until you can rely on them. Until you believe in them. It's very much about belief.

 

Are you being intentionally deceitful here? The government of this country exists with OUR consent, not the other way around:

The 1st Amendment reads:

It is written by representatives of the people in a fasion that illustrates the fact that any power the government possesses must be sanctioned by us first.

I will say that the original question you are replying to is based on a false premise. Without a government, who protects your rights?

 

ORLY? What are they testing it for?

You would still need to test for it either way.

You would still be able to test for it either way. Because it is something objective...it will be the same for everyone. So people can verify your claims.

You cant do that with opinions. If I say "freedom of speech is just" there is no way to disprove that opinion.

 

This was answered in post#142.

This was answered in post#142.

This was answered in post#142.

Who gets to define "harm"?

Speech is capable of harming people. Religion is capable of harming people.

Why would that not apply to anything else? What makes rape and murder special?

 

yes, you claim you have no rights without a Politician, King or Dictator granting them to you.

absurd.

who gets to define a dog is called a dog and not a tree or a house??

*facepalm* at your idiot logic...it's like the ramblings of a 5 year old child who hasn't yet grasped common sense.

how so? don't just say (*)(*)(*)(*)...be specific!

you clearly cannot read...I've already talked about Governments, Laws, Legal Rights...please, don't hold me responsible for your own ignorance.

 

It is rather ridiculous to call them rights.

We are also free to kill each other so by your definition we have a right to kill.

Ability=/=right.

Why do we need to perpetuate the species? And again if it was found that forced eugenics perpetuated the species would you be first on board? Where do we draw the line? Why not just perpetuate a small group? A nation? Or just an individual?

It's instinctual not to eat each other but racism is also completely instinctual so by your argument we should be racists.

We are physically free to do whatever we like regardless of the govt, what the government, or just other people in general, does, is it changes the consequences of those actions.

There are no rights. Furthermore this is just your definition. If the vast majority of people decided that we should introduce healthcare then what is your argument? That it forces people to do something, therefore it is wrong? The majority of people don't agree with that however.

 

I claimed they had the final say because they have the power to take those rights away.

Why is it absurd? Are you saying they DONT have that power?

I asked you first. Quid pro quo Clarice.

The Crusades (religion). Spanish inquisition (Religion). If Saddam ordered someone dead (speech) they were killed.

Your failure to articulate your argument does not make me ignorant. I asked you simple questions.

 

Raskolnikov, don't hold me responsible for you inability to read and comprehend what was said in this thread.

I said this on page 1:

you're now just arguing $hit...to argue $hit...

you're like a child who says, "But mommy, I want to call that Tree a Pizza! Why can't I call it a Pizza!??"

again I point you to my my page 1 comment above...

Again, the argument of a 5 year old...

"There are no rights! I want to call the cat a dog! We don't exist! Society isn't real!!"

*sigh*

If you want to have an intellectual discussion, let me know.

 

Select the most precise experiment for gravity you can find and ask 100 random people around the world to conduct it.

The same 100 people, wait until each has a thought he wants to express. When he tries to, stop him and tell him he does not have the right to speak his mind. Watch his eyes.

More people will look at you with anger or contempt than will come up with the same value for gravity.

 

I'll address this...the rest is just you again not reading what I wrote about what my stance was...as I've repeatedly said Government can take those freedoms away.

to address your comment...

In your examples, is it someone's speech or freedom of religion that's harming someone...or the VIOLENT acts that you described?

If I say, "I'm going to kill that man"

and then I shoot him with a gun...what harmed the man? My speech or my violent actions??

if it's the speech that's harmful, then why isn't it illegal for me to say "I'm going to kill that man"??

this is all common sense...it's not difficult

 

What makes you right? According to the subjective rights theorist, you are neither right nor wrong, you just act according to your desires. The question really boils down to this:

1. are you a brute barbarian who only respects the might is right principle, accepting rights as privileges from your government, and relying on propaganda/politicians/instinct/emotion/intuition to "feel" what is right or wrong, or:

2. do you follow religious principles, rigidly and unquestioningly adhering to the dictates of scriptures and priests/shamans for knowing what is right and wrong, or:

3. do you have an objective framework for your ethics upon which you can use reason to determine that which is right or wrong?

#1 is the rule of the socialist. #2 is the religionist. #3 is the adherent to natural law.

 

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say CAN and WILL be used AGAINST YOU, in the court of law.

But why do they want to use everything against me? Cops are nothing more than prosecutors in uniform. The bastards have to meet their quota I guess..

 

Which means government can grant them through inaction.

If the violent acts occur because of the speech, then the violence is just a proxy for the speech. Those executions would not have occurred had Saddam not ordered them.

That is not the same thing as my example above, because you could have done that without saying anything. By contrast, the executioner only executed people on Saddam's orders.

It is illegal. Lots of people have been jailed for death threats.

That is one of the few exceptions to free speech in this country...you cannot threaten to kill someone.

It is to me, but I am happy to educate you. I'll even provide sources.

 

Allow implies action or knowledge. It's really a twist of the language to make that argument.

Society is a useful term, but in the sense that you use it, which is to suggest that a large group of individual human beings agree upon something without making it clear that's what you mean, is sophistry. For example, when you say "a young man goes out into society to make his name", logically you mean a young man seeks to utilize his talents to get other individuals within a fairly nebulous group to know about him, even if indirectly. Your rhetoric, then, would be sound. However, when you argue that "society gives that consensus", logically you must mean that every individual human being within a nebulous group (and it's very difficult to define every member) agrees upon a certain thing. If that's not what you really meant, then your statement is sophistry, or an intent to deceive with something that appears logical but is not.

So there is not a consensus, but a majority. How is that those people in power are equivalent to a majority? And to what sort of majority are they equivalent?

What it means is that if one does speak, those in power may or may not choose to interfere using those who will enforce their dictates on their behalf. I don't see what a majority (and a majority of what?) has to do anything, as their opinion is meaningless unless they hold the power to interfere which they don't.

So you hold to the principle that might is right. Very well, do you agree that everyone with the power to do whatever they want to do are right to do so? Do you consider yourself wrong when your opinions on what is good or evil conflict with theirs? I would say that if you do, then you are irrational as you have no other framework for your ethics, or at least none that you are willing to defend.

 

Really? Take away your consent and see if it ceases to exist.

 

I asked you first. Quid pro quo Clarice.



So far, none of the people saying "OMG the government doesnt grant rights" have been able to answer my question; who gets to define rights if not the majority?

It isnt my principle. It is nature's. I didnt invent it.

That is the same as might makes right.

No. All rights are subjective, because they are all based on opinion.

How is it socialist?

 

What does that have to do with anything? His belief does not equate to reality.

So what? You are back to majority opinion = objective rights again. I have already explained why that is wrong.