The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: thundley4 on May 14, 2011, 03:33:24 PM
-
white_wolf (1000+ posts) Sat May-14-11 02:39 PM
Original message
Rights. Where do they come from?
This was touched on in another thread, but I don't want to derail it too much, so I thought I'd make a new one asking this question. Where do you think Rights come from? Some contend as the Founders did that rights that everyone is endowed with inalienable and natural rights. I don't agree with that view and here is why. If everyone was endowed with natural and inalienable rights then no government or group could ever take away your rights and everyone would have the same rights, because they are part of the some natural law. That, of course, is not true.
I do not think rights are part of some natural law like gravity, which cannot be violated as it is a law of nature, but rather they are creations of society and that is why it is so important for our society to preserve and protect the rights we have won. What side of the debate do you come down on? Do rights come from nature or are they the creations of society?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1102104
dkf (1000+ posts) Sat May-14-11 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. I say they are creations of society.
If they were natural and God given they would simply exist with no need for enforcement.
So a hermit living in a cave like a primitive would not have the right to life and liberty?
nolabear (1000+ posts) Sat May-14-11 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Good question. Imo they are creations of society in order to be able to have a society.
The Libertarians twist the idea of rights around to make it sound as though they protect individuals, but if the world was just a bunch of individuals we'd still be building castle keeps and killing and pillaging and taking what we are strong enough to take.
In a well functioning society we agree that we have rights. More importantly, we have equal rights. We lose them when we can't use them for the common good. And we want to extend them in order to care not only for ourselves but for those who can't do it for themselves (elderly, disabled, animal, children, etc.). Everything else is lagniappe (and the definition of that depends entirely on whose side you come down on).
That's my opinion.
Your opinion is wrong. Society and government is a creation of man to preserve rights, not limit them.
badtoworse (809 posts) Sat May-14-11 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. In our system of government, with which I agree, the rights are inalienable...
Edited on Sat May-14-11 03:01 PM by badtoworse
and not granted by the government. In other words, they exist irrespective of government. The Bill of Rights is written in a way that recognizes that: The BoR does not grant rights to the people; it restricts things the government can do so that the inalienable rights are protected
The fact that governments can and frequently do violate human rights does not mean they don't exist. It means that the government in question does not respect those rights.
Low post count Freeper Troll.
kentuck (1000+ posts) Sat May-14-11 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. Rights are what civilized societies demand from their government.
The government cannot give them rights, they can only enforce the laws to make sure they have them. If the people do not demand their rights, they soon lose them.
white_wolf (1000+ posts) Sat May-14-11 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. That is my view as well.
Rights are a creation of society and it is up to society to protect them. They are not granted by natural law.
verges (1000+ posts) Sat May-14-11 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. As someone else pointed out,
they are not a natural law such as the laws of physics. But they are there before society! They are primal.
Rage for Order (1000+ posts) Sat May-14-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. I disagree
If rights are a creation of society then rights can also be denied by society. Gay marriage is an example that immediately comes to mind. Using your line of reasoning, gays shouldn't have the right to be married because society has not granted them that right.
:ohsnap:
verges (1000+ posts) Sat May-14-11 03:37 PM
Original message
BINGO!!
A Government/Society cannot confer rights. It can only restrict them.
white_wolf (1000+ posts) Sat May-14-11 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
20. Society creates rights.
Without a society to create and protect rights, we are reduced to a "might makes right" situation where the strong oppress the weak.
verges (1000+ posts) Sat May-14-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Again, you are thinking backwards.
Socity can attempt to suppress righs or protect ights. It cannot confer rights. "Might makes right" does not mean that the basic natural right doesn't exists in the first place. MMR takes rights away. If there are no rights, except those conferred by society, MMR cannot oppress. They cannot oppres because they are taking what doesn't actually exist. Which is, of course non-sensical. A right has to exist before it can be taken away.r
kentuck (1000+ posts) Sat May-14-11 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. You are thinking backwards.
Why isn't the whole world free and why doesn't everyone have the rights that you say are "basic natural rights"? If they cannot practice those rights, they do not exist for them. They are only a dream.
The whole world isn't free, because government has taken peoples rights away from them. If people aren't endowed with certain rights by their creator, why is Obama bombing Libya to try and force the government to give the Libyans their natural right to freedom? Is Obama just trying to enforce his vision of rights on another people?
-
verges (1000+ posts) Sat May-14-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Again, you are thinking backwards.
Socity can attempt to suppress righs or protect ights. It cannot confer rights. "Might makes right" does not mean that the basic natural right doesn't exists in the first place. MMR takes rights away. If there are no rights, except those conferred by society, MMR cannot oppress. They cannot oppres because they are taking what doesn't actually exist. Which is, of course non-sensical. A right has to exist before it can be taken away.r
Careful, verges. Speaking truth to DUmbshits is a sure, certain and well tested way to develop an outbreak of granite on the Island.
-
I find it amusing that democrats are even discussing how we get out rights. To the democrat party, it's common knowledge that rights are bestowed on us peons by the benevolence of the federal government.
-
If rights come from God, government has to have a darn good reason to take them away. Take property rights, for example. If I have a god-given right to the fruits of my labor, government had better respect that right. If however, my right to property is given by government, well they can redistribute away and I have no reason to complain. It fits very well in the DUmmie ideology.
-
(http://www.iwojima.com/raising/lflaga2.gif)
our rights are paid for. in full
-
I think the primitives biggest problem with rights is the unwritten bill of responsibility. Once the government comes in and tells society what it can and cannot do, the need to behave responsibly vanishes.
Take for example, Phelps.
He believes the government has given him the right to free speech, and therefore he ignores any responsibility involved with it. -Which is why he and his clan have no problem disrupting funerals.
also..
Many people believe they have the right to government granted 'entitlements' and feel no need to have the responsibility to get off government assistance programs as soon as possible.
And of course, the 'right to government healthcare' - where people will start going to the E.R. for splinters and bruises, and many will stop behaving responsibly because the government will fix them up for free. Examples - Free bariatric surgery, free anti-smoking medication, free abortions, free drug/alcohol addiction treatments, mental health care, gyms, etc. etc. etc.
-
white_wolf (1000+ posts) Sat May-14-11 02:39 PM
Original message
Rights. Where do they come from?
That question has been answered so I have a new one. Lefts. Where do they come from? I say from the south end of a north bound jackass with diarrhea.
-
Which body orifice is he speaking out of?
...as if I didn't already know.
-
Rights created by society or government are neither rights nor inalienable.
There's a reason DUmmies should never, EVER be in charge of the nation.
-
God, please make this kind of stupid a deadly sin.
-
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
- The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
-
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
- The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
"“[W]hat makes this place [America] special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’†~ Obama
-
If he gets re-elected I am gonna freak out man.
Republicans better step up their ground game in 2012
-
"“[W]hat makes this place [America] special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’†~ Obama
The jug-eared Kenyan can't satisfy you guys.
He fails to credit "their Creator" for the rights of mankind, and you criticize him.
If he had said our rights are endowed "by Allah", you would have criticized him.
He just can't make you happy.
-
If he gets re-elected I am gonna freak out man.
Republicans better step up their ground game in 2012
Obama's going to give the independents who voted for him in '08 plenty of reasons to correct that mistake on November 6th, 2012. He can't win without the independents. Yeah, there's no clear-cut Republican challenger now. But, 20 years ago at this time, who had heard the name "Bill Clinton," except for a few people in Arkansas?
-
The jug-eared Kenyan can't satisfy you guys.
He fails to credit "their Creator" for the rights of mankind, and you criticize him.
If he had said our rights are endowed "by Allah", you would have criticized him.
He just can't make you happy.
The question is, well endowed by who or what? His failure to mention it opens more questions than it answers.
EDIT: I must have had dirty thoughts on my mind at the time.
-
But, 20 years ago at this time, who had heard the name "Bill Clinton," except for a few people in Arkansas?
It was worse than that. For those of us who had heard of him, it was entirely in the context of his horrible, awful, endless speech at the 1988 democrat convention. He droned on and on, until they had to almost literally pull him from the podium, and he was briefly a national joke because of it. Had there been an internet in 1988 like the one we have today, he would've been permanently destroyed. All media of the day was liberal, so after a brief period of derision he was forgotten until four years later.
-
Oooh, this thread just gave me an idea:
Wouldn't it be great to ask this to Obama: "If the Declaration of Independence says that our Creator gave us the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and Islam makes Jihhad on those who pursue happiness in religions other than Islam, does that not put Islam at odds with our founding fathers and our Declaration of Independence?"
Oooh man, that's good.
Gonna pat myself on the back for that one.
-
Oooh, this thread just gave me an idea:
Wouldn't it be great to ask this to Obama: "If the Declaration of Independence says that out Creator gave us the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and Islam makes Jihhad on those who pursue happiness in religions other than Islam, does that not put Islam at odds with our fouinding fathers and our Declaration of Independence?"
Oooh man, that's good.
Gonna pat myself on the back for that one.
I'll save your shoulder the self-abuse.
The DoR would be compatible with any sect of Islam--or any other religion--that did not resort to violence. A resort to violence would delegitamize any (non-)religion including one that claimed to be Protestant or Catholic even though such creeds heavily informed the founders.
Anyway, that's the most obvious retort I could think of; though it should be noted I've been told Obama is smarter than me.
-
......The DoR would be compatible with any sect of Islam--or any other religion--that did not resort to violence......
Now there's a contradiction: Islam DOES resort to violance against non-Muslims
-
Now there's a contradiction: Islam DOES resort to violance against non-Muslims
Been to northern Ireland lately?
I'm referring to a strict view of the DoI. The founders weren't looking to exclude religion but allow those of faith to join the polity, regardless of creed.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that:
MAJOR PREMISE: genocide and peace are not mutually excluding terms
MINOR PREMISE: Islam has nothing positive to offer this planet
Draw your own conclusion.
-
Been to northern Ireland lately?
Irellevant. That is not a religious war.
Been to Iran lately?
-
Irellevant. That is not a religious war.
Tell that to the Protestants.
-
Tell that to the Protestants.
I think it has more to do with English control over Northern Ireland. The religions are just another can of fuel to the fire.
-
Irellevant. That is not a religious war.
Tell that to the Protestants.
The fighting is over English occupation of Ireland, not over religion.
Now, it just so happens that the English are protestants and the Irish are Catholics, but he fighting is over English occupation of Ireland, not over religion.