[Drjones]

Hello. Ongoing debate with a relativist (:rolleyes: I know....)
and he's got me stumped.

I think that we have rights because we agree to them, but here's what he replied to that:

WHOA there, cowboy. Let's back up a second and take a look at something you
just wrote:

"...I believe that humans have rights for the same reason money has value:
because we agree to them." Did you think I'd just gloss over that section of
your e-mail?! ;-)

Do you see how admitting that puts you in a wee bit of a conundrum regarding
your earlier position on rights? Why the flip-flop? Are rights definite and
immutable, or are the relativistic? Sounds like you quite a relativistic
position you've just staked out for yourself there, buddy. Care to
elaborate, or maybe you care to take it back? If you don't you got some
'splaining to do.

And by the way, admitting that rights are rights because we agree to them
does, indeed, make them no longer inalienable. If they are rights only
because people agree to them, then as soon as people STOP agreeing to them,
they are by definition no longer inalienable. C'mon, Strati!! Follow your
own logic -- I shouldn't have to do it for you. Seriously.

Regarding carrying a gun to protect my life and that of my family: Why do
you think I choose not to carry a gun? I bet you have no idea why I don't.
There are two reasons actually, but one of them applies to me personally,
and is also the main reason I'm generally in favor of banning handguns.

Strati wrote: "The right to self-defense follows naturally from the right to
life,
because if one does not have the right to defend their life, then the
initial right to life is meaningless."

I agree with you here for the most part. However, societies have always, and
will always, put limits on how someone is able to defend themselves. If you
don't agree with this and wish to take the ridiculous Libertarian stance,
then you are forced to believe that all people should have the "right" to
carry grenades and bazookas, C-4 and tactical nukes. However, if you can
answer why societies everywhere have decided that civilians are not allowed
to carry the items listed above, then you will be on your way to
understanding why I am generally for gun control and the banning of
handguns.

How old are you, Strati?
------------------------------------------------

(Oh, and you don't EVEN want to know what he said when I asked him what he would do if society decided that every man and woman should have their way with his wife and youngest kid five days a week....(He's a utilitarian too...) )


HELP!
Drjones

[Blackhawk]

If this is your premise in the debate:"...I believe that humans have rights for the same reason money has value: because we agree to them." Then your premise is flawed. You're right about money. If the people using it as a medium of exchange don't agree that it has value, it doesn't. So the concept of money REQUIRES consensus.

My right to life does NOT require your or anybody else's agreement that it exists. It only requires MY conviction that it exists. It's up to ME to protect it by NOT doing or eating dangerous things or letting others or circumstances put me in mortal danger.

If I sense something's after me, I'm going to evade or avoid it.

Where you begin to agree that MY right to life exists is when you get the idea that YOUR life is in jeopardy if you try infringing with MY right to life. There's NOTHING relative about it. It's an absolute.

After all that stuff transpires, we may agree that we both have the right to life. "Civilization" begins when members of a society agree that others in the society have fundamental inalienable rights that THEY will individually protect with every fiber of their being.

The important point is that I don't have a right to life because you and everybody else says so. I have it because I say so.

It's a fine point, but it's a very important one to understand if you're going to debate inalienable rights.

[Mark Benningfield]

Hello All.

Sorry, Drjones, but he may have a point. If rights exist predicated on the prior agreement of concerned parties, then if any of the parties decides to disagree, those rights are rightly abrogated, by definition. The purpose of constructing a government is to try and make sure that all parties concerned respect those rights possesed by each, prior to the construction. That would be the only "agreement" factor that I'm aware of, and it's more of a "recognition" than an "agreement." HTH.

[Drjones]

Hello and thanks for the replies.

Blackhawk, I thought this was YOUR idea from the original TFL thread; that we have rights for the same reason that money has value; because we agree on it.

Regardless, you are right.

I guess I will reply to this guy, and to others in the future, that we only have rights that we can defend.

i.e.; I have whatever rights I want to, says my Mossberg. :neener:

Is that a more solid argument?

[Blackhawk]

Blackhawk, I thought this was YOUR idea from the original TFL thread; that we have rights for the same reason that money has value; because we agree on it. It was, but you fell into the sand trap of appropriating arguments. You have to get the WHOLE argument if you're going to use it for yourself!

When people agree, you have to figure out why they agree if you're to understand them.

Why, for example, would 500 people agree that each one of them has a right to life?

Could it be that each one of them is convinced that the other 498 will kill him/her if s/he kills somebody else? They're not necessarily agreeing as much as they fear what will happen to them if they don't go along with the others. That, my friend, is a consensus, which means that a person is willing to go along with something even though it's not necessarily agreed with.

Most people pay taxes by consensus rather than by agreement. To hear the German people after WWII, they didn't agree with the Nazis, but most went along with them, didn't they?

You can put your debate back on track by delving into what agreements among people really are as opposed to a consensus.

An "I'll agree to his right if he agrees to mine" isn't really an agreement as much as it is a truce. However, "this amount of gold represents 1 year's labor" once a consensus is reached works beyond the mere agreement of two people because the parties are fungible within the agreement. The gold still represents the same thing if the original parties disappear. As long as there are enough people able and willing to kill murderers in a society, a "right to life" can be said to exist independent of a person's individual claim to his own life. But the former is not an inalienable right as the latter is!

When losing a debate, wear your opponent out with peripheral facts until he opens up another avenue of attack you can take advantage of.

[CZ-75]

The important point is that I don't have a right to life because you and everybody else says so. I have it because I say so.

I sense a pitfall here, which is why then don't I have a right to have a say in the rights of others?

I could lay claim to a right to one's wife, property, etc. because I said so.

I guess I will reply to this guy, and to others in the future, that we only have rights that we can defend.

You might be enabling the next Attilla with this statement, since he would be justified to use force to protect his "right" to your property and life.

You could predicate rights on being contingent to that which is in your best interests and doesn't conflict with the best interests of your neighbor.

This will set you up to be attacked because everyone's definition of best interest varies. To one it is to be armed to protect one's self; to another to be free of the potential from harm (thus arms). That one position is unrealistic is beside the point, since the point will devolve to an emotional level of what one feels to be in one's interests.

The idea of God-given rights sounds better and better all the time, since very few of us could defend our self-declared rights against a majority that didn't believe we had them.

[Blackhawk]

I sense a pitfall here, which is why then don't I have a right to have a say in the rights of others?Each of us has an inalienable right to life that nobody else has a say about. That's the natural right that causes you to fight to preserve your life regardless of what danger you sense. YOU can't even prevent your body to reacting to protect your life in the face of danger.

Each of us also has an alienable right to life in this country. Nobody can legally take any of our lives without due process of law, etc. But that's a right by agreement, consensus, or however else you want to put it. That's NOT the natural right to life we each have, and others do have a say in it.

[MacPelto]

If you don't agree with this and wish to take the ridiculous Libertarian stance,
then you are forced to believe that all people should have the "right" to
carry grenades and bazookas, C-4 and tactical nukes. However, if you can
answer why societies everywhere have decided that civilians are not allowed
to carry the items listed above, then you will be on your way to
understanding why I am generally for gun control and the banning of
handguns.

This is not an accurate statement.

This may be an anarchist belief, I don't know - it is not a Libertarian belief. Randian-type Libertarians believe that it is wrong to initiate force against another, but that it is not only right, but immoral to not , defend yourself against wrongful force initiated against you. Hence, Libertarians are in favor of allowing personal arms.

The devices mentioned in the above quote are not arms they are ordnance. The direction of the application of force from ordnance can not be precisely controlled. For example a bomb explodes in many directions, initiating force against everything around it,whether appropriate or not, nor is it defensive in nature.

As all shooters should know, we are responsible for the terminal resting place of every projectile we fire, and with firearms we can control that resting place, thereby not initiating force against inappropriate targets.

From this belief in the morality of the non-initiation of wrongful force, the morality of defending yourself against said force, and the responsibility for proper application of defensive force, comes the conclusion that personal arms are for the good of society.

[Art Eatman]

I've always said that for every Civil Right there is a Civil Responsibility.

Arguing "Rights" without at least stipulating the conditions of these rights is pretty much a waste of time.

The right to defend one's own life carries with it the responsibility to not unintentionally hurt somebody who's not involved in the problem. "Oops!" justifiably carries penalties.

I submit the right to defend one's life is an absolute right. I believe that nobody has an absolute responsibility for my protection except me. LEOs are not obligated by law except as they happen accidentally upon the scene--and the response time when called upon for help is likely problematic as to utility. In this, the Second Amendment is superfluous. One typically chooses the most efficient tool for the job at hand--which in this case is a firearm.

Art

[TheBluesMan]

Sounds like a good debate, Doc. Watch out for those self-proclaimed relativists... they tend to be good at talking the talk, but they seldom walk the walk. Chances are he's not a true Utilitarian either. Believe me, I've read a lot of John Stuart Mill.

He said: "Are rights definite and immutable, or are the[y] relativistic?"

Take your statement back. Human Rights are immutable.

He said: "Regarding carrying a gun to protect my life and that of my family: Why do you think I choose not to carry a gun? I bet you have no idea why I don't. There are two reasons actually, but one of them applies to me personally, and is also the main reason I'm generally in favor of banning handguns."

Don't argue this point with him. You'll lose. If you want the right to carry a gun you have to recognize his right *not* to carry a gun. Explore his favorability toward banning handguns. The weakness of his argument lies there.

He said: "If you don't agree with this and wish to take the ridiculous Libertarian stance, then you are forced to believe that all people should have the "right" to carry grenades and bazookas, C-4 and tactical nukes. However, if you can answer why societies everywhere have decided that civilians are not allowed to carry the items listed above, then you will be on your way to understanding why I am generally for gun control and the banning of handguns."

Don't fall for this tactic. As MacPelto said, none of these items are directional. The discussion is about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Keep it there and you'll win. Don't let him define the terms of the argument or you will lose the contest before you even start to fight.

Again, explore his reasons for banning handguns. Post his responses here and watch the good members of this forum tear his argument to shreds.

:D

[MacPelto]

Wow, was I confusing enough last night, or what?

[Blackhawk]

Wow, was I confusing enough last night, or what?Naw. It was clear that you were just wrong.... :D

[NewShooter78]

Drjones,
I think you've got some pretty good material here to use in your argument. I with that I had more to add, but it looks like everyone has covered the basics for a good rebuttle. And always beware of those that want to broadly ban anything. Chance are he's not a relativist at all and just a grabber of some sort.

[CZ-75]

Each of us has an inalienable right to life that nobody else has a say about. That's the natural right that causes you to fight to preserve your life regardless of what danger you sense. YOU can't even prevent your body to reacting to protect your life in the face of danger.


Case # 1 - suicide or self-sacrifice

Obviously, these people didn't value their lives, as in the case of suicide, or willfully went into a situation where they put their life in jeopardy, as in the case of self-sacrifice (e.g., the soldier who jumps on the grenade to save his buddies).

Case #2 - Those who espouse pacifism.

Obviously, a good portion of those who do are conditional in their beliefs, or just liars.

Still, there are committed pacifists who would be willing to die (and have) rather than defend themselves.




So, my question is, how do these confirmed examples of human behavior contrary to self-preservation affect the supposedly innate, inalienable right to self-preservation?

Are they exceptions?

If so, isn't the actual example of the individual who has acted toward self-preservation also an exception, since most people won't be in life-threatening situations (we'll exclude diseases and illness, since these engender primarily passive responses from the individual afflicted)?

It would seem that one could dig up a statistically significant number of examples from both extremes, at least for humans.

I'd expect that were one to use examples of plants and animals that passively or actively employ self-preservation strategies, the balance would overwhelmingly tip in the favor of self-preservation.

Were this to be the case, would one say that these creatures are exercising a "right" (even if they are unaware of the concept -- possibly as most people are)?

[Blackhawk]

Are they exceptions? No. Read it again:YOU can't even prevent your body to reacting to protect your life in the face of danger.The brain can control many reactions, but it can't control reacting to pain, heartbeat, etc.

Maybe a clearer example of a natural right that everybody has that is singular and completely inalienable should be pointed out. You cannot infringe it yourself regardless of your convictions or intentions unless you're bent on self destruction through drugs, etc. It is something that simply cannot be infringed, period.

It's exercised every second of every day in a person's life.

It is the right to think.

Even when you're asleep, your thinker moniters your environment for temperature, comfort, threats, etc.

Threats...?!

Yep.

Startle somebody who's asleep, even in REM sleep, and they're INSTANTLY ready to fight or flee as they automatically practice that other inalienable right, their right to self defense.

[CZ-75]

YOU can't even prevent your body to reacting to protect your life in the face of danger.

Doesn't the man who goes into a fusilade of bullets to rescue a friend or storm an enemy position prevent his body from reacting to protect him?

Sure he may have adrenalin dump, but he is reacting against that and even utilizing it.

Subordination of self-preservation instincts sounds like prevention to me.


Now, again, since self-preservation is a right, do other animals that act towards that end have a right to protect their lives?

[NewShooter78]

Doesn't the man who goes into a fusilade of bullets to rescue a friend or storm an enemy position prevent his body from reacting to protect him?

No, because he is reacting to the situation. Fight or flight stimulation. He chooses to fight because he is trying to preserve his life instead of just sitting there waiting to die. And with rescuing his friend he's still exhibiting a fight response. In both situations, he's still controlling his own right to exist/life no matter how foolish it may seem, or how to the contrary it might sound. He is controling his own destiny, and may or may not be lucking in the endevour.

[MJRW]

The nukes and C-4 argument is pretty ridiculous. None of these are valid in terms of self-defense. This has been explained previously in this thread. He has a weakness here, let him push the line of how a firearm falls into these categories. He should trap himself into wanting to outlaw kite string, too.

[Bikeguy]

A people or person has only those rights which they can secure for themselves. Anything else is just talk.

[CZ-75]

The nukes and C-4 argument is pretty ridiculous.

I'll concur, since they are offensive weapons, not defensive, unless you think from a strategic point of view.

An individual has no need for nukes or explosives to defend himself, and ordnance like this is equally hazardous to user and target alike.

Firearms are the only adequate tools for the job until someone develops a blaster ray, etc. They apply just the right amount of force to the right target.

Try doing that to a mugger with a briefcase nuke or a block of C-4.

[CZ-75]

A people or person has only those rights which they can secure for themselves. Anything else is just talk.

With the right amount of force, I can secure my rights over your rights.



I still see that no one wishes to tackle whether or not an animal has rights to life, since they exhibit self-preservation behaviors.

I know some would argue for sentience as a criteria, but we've already seen admissions that humans react to danger and that the instinct for self-preservation can be subordinated by thought processes (ergo, it is a lower level, instinctive reaction). Hence, an animal should have a right to life, since I doubt anyone disputes they have instincts.

Where I'm going with this, I don't know, but I sense that it may weaken the argument for rights as being self-declared entities.

Natural rights may gain from this line of reasoning, since it would seem universal between man and beast, hence a "natural" truism.

[Blackhawk]

CZ-75,

No offense, but you're being somewhat obtuse so there's not much point in unraveling what you're knitting. :)

[Bikeguy]

With the right amount of force, I can secure my rights over your rights.

Exactly my point, CZ.

And talk of the right to think and the right to self defense coming from the fact that animals can think and defend themselves is nonsense. Just because they can do it does not make it a "right". "Rights" are a man made concept. Self preservation and thinking are not. If it is a right just because I can do it .... well, you see where that could go.

Behavior does not equal "right".

[Khornet]

the most devastating debate tactic I know is to immediately aknowledge when you stand corrected. Your opponent in this case correctly rejected the concensus/money analogy, and you should say so right away. Then you can go on to take him apart with other, better arguments, because he has one weak spot:he's wrong overall, while you were wrong on a minor point of debate. Go git 'im.

[CZ-75]

No offense, but you're being somewhat obtuse so there's not much point in unraveling what you're knitting.

Gee, thanks for clarifying that for us.


So you're saying there is no point in stating that what would be called instinct in an animal is a right for a human because he says it is?

Yet, you would say that this right can be subordinated by a human through the exercise of reason?

This isn't a shill for animal rights, but I find it kind of hard to believe that someone make a distinction between the reactionary behaviors of sentient beings (humans) and non-sentient life for exercising the same precognitive behavior.

Perhaps I'm obtuse, but the soapbox philosopher routine doesn't amount to much unless you can defend your points clearly and that they are prima facie. I'm going out on a limb for the points I want to make, even if they don't comprise a weltanshauung for me.

Sounds like you are ducking out, using esoterica as your refuge.






Bikeguy,

And talk of the right to think and the right to self defense coming from the fact that animals can think and defend themselves is nonsense. Just because they can do it does not make it a "right". "Rights" are a man made concept. Self preservation and thinking are not. If it is a right just because I can do it .... well, you see where that could go.

I think you hit upon what I'm getting at here, which is that rights are man-made, not divine and not "natural." They exist because we say so. That being the case, what one man declares is his right is only his right if no one opposes it. Additionally, animals don't have rights because they didn't say so and we didn't give them. Still, that means a consensus is required, which would torpedo what Blackhawk has been saying, in addition to the point about instincts for self-preservation being tantamount to rights.

I also think that your last sentence, in regard to being able to do something, yet not being a right conflicts with the original post you made about having those rights that you can defend. If one man can take your rights, then doesn't he have a "right" to do so?

It seems a slippery slope that I can declare those rights that I want, even if they harm others, if I can force others to yield them to me.

[buzz_knox]

Actually, to a large extent our rights are based on agreements as to what those rights are.

You have the right to life. Does that mean bacteria can't infect you without your permission? Does a predator have to file for a writ before trying to eat you? Nope. The right to life only applies to a social context: i.e. I have the right not to have my life taken.

Personally, the only right I know I have based on my existence as a human being is the right to think what I choose. The other rights are those which I demand based on my status as a free person willing to fight for said rights.

[Blackhawk]

CZ-75Yet, you would say that this right can be subordinated by a human through the exercise of reason? No, I wouldn't say that. That's what you said.

With the exception of heartbeat, thinking, and a few others, humans can control their reactions to stimuli. One of those others is the body preparing itself for fight or flight when danger is perceived. Humans can, however, control what they do subsequent to that. That is not subordinating the reaction to the stimulus to "reason", it is merely controlling actions taken subsequent to already having reacted to the stimulus.

[CZ-75]

No, I wouldn't say that. That's what you said.

I did say that. But doesn't that still mean that rights are sub-rational, especially since your examples are stimulus/response in nature?

I concluded that, on that concept alone, animals should have an equal claim to rights, since they exhibit similar behaviors to humans with regard to the self-preservation, which weakens the case for rights as self-declared, since animals don't do many declarations.

This might, however, construe that there exist universal laws (natural rights) that exist for all creatures, such as there exist laws of physics, with regard to rights. This would, it would seem, be hard to support without a basis in religion.

Like religion, I don't think that we are going to find a universal truth that is going to define rights for everyone.

[Blackhawk]

...which weakens the case for rights as self-declared... I've been talking about two distinct types of rights:

1. Natural rights, which exist on their own and without the agreement of anybody being necessary, and they certainly don't need to be self-declared.

2. Concensus rights, which exist only by the agreement of those concerned.

Grasping the concept of natural rights isn't easy, so it's far more comfortable to try to squeeze every conceivable right into the second category. However, all you have to do is think, and a natural right leaks out....

As somebody's tag line says: "My opinion is just as irrelevant as yours," and maybe that's where we should leave it.... :D

[Bikeguy]

I also think that your last sentence, in regard to being able to do something, yet not being a right conflicts with the original post you made about having those rights that you can defend. If one man can take your rights, then doesn't he have a "right" to do so?

Actually that is the same argument that Blackhawk is making - because you can do it, it is a right. I may think I have a right to kick your butt for having blonde hair. If I'm really convinced of it, no amount of convincing me otherwise is going to change that. To me it is my right. To the rest of society, it is not. In other words, there is no such thing as a "right". It is a concept. Different societies and peoples have different concepts as to what is a "right". Therefore, If I am powerful enough to impose my will upon you, and no one stops me, then you have no rights. Do I have a "right" to do so? If I can do it and no one stops me then sure. If I say it is so and no one can stop me, then I am the definer of what is a right. If they can stop me, then they get to define what is a right.

As for natural rights, different cultures have disagreed as to what are natural rights. The very fact that we have to sit down and decide what is and what is not a natural right points to the fact that it is a man made concept.

However, on Blackhawk's side is the fact that there are some things that are taboo in almost every, if not every, culture - such as incest and murder. Of course, different cultures define these differently, but within the definition, they are almost universally taboo. Hmmmmmm:confused: :D

[QKRTHNU]

Dr. Jones,

This guys sounds like he's pretty bright & pretty misguided. Send him this link and ask him to promise to read it. It might change his mind about what should be put into "law"

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

[Low Budget Shooter]

Dr. Jones,

Thanks for reviving this discussion. I am still moved with sorrow, anger, and determination when I hear so many people regecting Thomas Jefferson's conclusion on this topic.

So, I'll chime in, even though I am straying slightly from you original question.

CZ-75 wrote:

"Like religion, I don't think that we are going to find a universal truth that is going to define rights for everyone."

I would argue that just because not everyone will agree to an idea, that doesn't mean it is not still truth.

-many did not agree that the world was round, but it was TRUE
-many did not agree that there were little thingies in our bodies making us sick, but it was TRUE
-many did not believe that Jews were being exterminated in Germany, but it was TRUE
-not everyone believed that blacks are just as human as whites, but it was TRUE
-not everyone believes that Jesus, or Muhammad, or any other religious figure was really the TRUE messenger of God, but if, when we die, one of them greets us on the other side, we will find out his message was TRUE.

The reason it is so difficult to find a definition of rights that depends in some way on the actions of human beings is that rights are endowed upon people before birth.

-My rights are whatever I can defend? So, you have the right to free speech unless I come up and hit you over the head and knock you uncounscious---then you no longer have the right of free speech?

-My rights are whatever the society consents to observe? So a black man has the right to worship how he pleases unless the white folks around you keep burning down your church and linching your congregation?

No, the TRUTH is that each person is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights. Even if you reject the idea that you have a Creator, with a capital C, you can still realize that each person is endowed during the process of his creation, with these rights.

A person in communist China who is not allowed, by his government, to speak freely, worship freely, own firearms, or peaceably assemble, still has the RIGHT to do these things. It's just that instead of his government performing its hightest function---protecting his rights, it is actually infringing those rights.

I'll pose my usual question here, since so far I've never had anybody really take it up:

Can you reject the main tenets of the first sentence of the primary founding document of our country
-all men are created
-all men are legally equal
-all men have unalienable rights
-these things are so obvious as to be self-evident
and still rightly be called an American?

Love this discussion!

LBS

[CZ-75]

However, on Blackhawk's side is the fact that there are some things that are taboo in almost every, if not every, culture - such as incest and murder. Of course, different cultures define these differently, but within the definition, they are almost universally taboo. Hmmmmmm


Disagree on the examples.

Egyptian culture was tolerant of incestuous relationships (i.e., the Pharonic Dynasties), as were some other near-eastern cultures.

Murder has been allowed if you had high enough social status in nearly every culture.

It was killing an equal or someone above your station that was frowned upon. a lord could kill a peasant, but not vice versa.

These seem to be excellent examples that those who have the power can determine just what their rights are.

[CZ-75]

-not everyone believes that Jesus, or Muhammad, or any other religious figure was really the TRUE messenger of God, but if, when we die, one of them greets us on the other side, we will find out his message was TRUE.


If you were a Muslim, you'd meet them both, along with Moses, Isaac, Abraham, Job, Saul, David, Jacob, etc., and they'd ALL be true messengers of God. Mohammed would only be the last of God's 144,000 (allegedly that number is representative of infinity to Arabs) prophets sent out to show humanity the light.



I think I mentioned that religion makes the question of rights an easy one, as they become God-given at that point and out of the realm of human intervention.



Since you lay a gauntlet down, I'll pick it up and reject this statement.

-all men have unalienable rights


I think that many can, have been, and will be alienated from the unalienable rights.

That said, disabuse be of this belief.

[Bikeguy]

Egyptian culture was tolerant of incestuous relationships (i.e., the Pharonic Dynasties), as were some other near-eastern cultures.

As in mother/son or father/daughter? If that is so, then that example is no good.

It was killing an equal or someone above your station that was frowned upon. a lord could kill a peasant, but not vice versa.

This is my point about defining murder differently.

[CZ-75]

As in mother/son or father/daughter? If that is so, then that example is no good.

I think brother/sister was most common, but Rameses III married several of his daughters. King Tut was married to his sister. Cleopatra to her brother.

[buzz_knox]

Can you reject the main tenets of the first sentence of the primary founding document of our country
-all men are created
-all men are legally equal
-all men have unalienable rights
-these things are so obvious as to be self-evident
and still rightly be called an American?


When that document was written, many men were slaves and were considered as created by God strictly to be servants; many otherwise free men were not legally equal because they did not own property; unalienable rights didn't apply to a large portion of the population (including slaves, women, unlanded men, and children); and these things were not so obvious as to be denied to said population for years to come. Only when society decided that they were appropriate candidates for true citizenship did they gain rights.

[Low Budget Shooter]

Buzz,

I'll buy the first part of what you wrote, that some of the founders, or maybe most, did not believe that blacks were fully human and truly equal.

And I grant that citizenship for blacks, as well as suffrage for both blacks and women was not granted until much later. (Do remember that suffrage was never mentioned as a right, and should not be considered a right.)

But, this last part of what you wrote doesn't cut the mustard:

Only when society decided that they were appropriate candidates for true citizenship did they gain rights.

No, sir, they HAD rights all along. Only when society RECOGNIZED that they were appropriate candidates for ture citizenship did they gain PROTECTION of their rights, so that they were no longer infringed.

The founders, especially Jefferson, wrote down the truth. Each successive generation of Americans has more fully been able to shed ancient prejudices and practice the truth.

[buzz_knox]

Actually, that last statement of mine was shaped inappropriately, but the argument stands. Even the natural law concept relies upon an inherent belief that some rights are inherent by virtue of our existence as thinking beings. But what those rights are depends upon an agreement as to what rights are inherent.

As for suffrage not being a right, the ability to actively partake in and effect control upon the direction of society is at least as fundamental as any other right in the Constitution. The entire offical (if not practical) point of the revolution was "no taxation without representation."

You can't compare natural rights with the laws of physics as some have done. Those laws apply universally, absent human interaction. "Natural rights" only exist where people agree to them and recognize them. There is no right to self defense in nature; there is no right to freedom of expression in nature; there is no right to property in nature; there is certainly no right to life in nature. Each of those only exists where there are humans who can acknowledge their desire for these things, and their willingness to insure that they can achieve their goals, whether by force of arms or by social contract i.e. an agreement between sentient beings to recognize and protect each other's rights.

However, this does not mean that there are not concepts inherent in being a free person. A person cannot be considered free unless certain criteria are met i.e. each of the rights enumerated above are recognized and guaranteed and freedom is restricted only to the absolute minimum required for society to operate. Those are preconditions to freedom acknowledge since societies began (although usually reserved for those in power), and those are the foundations of modern free society.

Notwithstanding the above, and as stated previously, there is one natural right that is guaranteed us by virtue of our sentience: the right to think as we choose and, by extension, the right to choose to act on our behalfs. It is from that right, combined with sufficient force of will, that all other rights can be forged and guaranteed. I have the right to reject whatever society demands of me and to affect my will upon society. I may pay a price for exercising that right, but so be it. That is how freedom developed, and that is how it will be maintained. By deciding to be free and making that a reality.

[Blackhawk]

There is no right to self defense in nature; Then we're arguing semantics, Buzz. Without agreeing on what a "right" is in the context of the discussion, this discussion is going nonwhere.

[Low Budget Shooter]

I realized a few weeks back, during the original TFL thread, while talking with my wife, that we have to define "rights" as pertaining only to how humans deal with one another, not how we deal with animals, not how animals deal with one another or with humans, not how we deal with God, or He deals with us.

Could we consider this to be part of the definition?

[buzz_knox]

Actually, that's a good definition. But, on reflection, I would submit that there is one right that applies universally, except in relationships with God: the right to struggle for one's own survival or, be extension, the survival of one's progeny. That could be the one true natural law, and would serve as a good foundation for all other rights.

[Blackhawk]

But, on reflection, I would submit that there is one right that applies universally, except in relationships with God: the right to struggle for one's own survival or, be extension, the survival of one's progeny. That could be the one true natural law, and would serve as a good foundation for all other rights. But doesn't that contradict your other statement that:There is no right to self defense in nature; or am I still confused by semantics, or did you change your mind on reflection? :D

[buzz_knox]

To an extent, it does contradict my earlier position. I got to thinking about the fundamental characteristics of life, and one of those is a desire to live. One of the most essential aspects of all life is the desire (instinctual or calculated) to continue living and to flourish. In the face of this basic and inherent fact, I found that I had to acknowledge that the ability to attempt to survive (if not to actually achieve survival) was fundamental and should be considered as a right.

[Blackhawk]

Now we're cookin', Buzz! :D

I contend that rights fall into two categories:

1) Natural, e.g., survival, and
2) Consensual, e.g., relationships, agreements, laws, etc.

Do we agree on this point?

[faustulus]

I believe
that is your key

[buzz_knox]

Blackhawk, I think we can see the beginnings of a consensus.

[B9mmHP]

The only rights you have are the ones you perceive to be yours. Your rights may be different than the ones I perceive to be mine.

Keep your rights as you like, I will keep mine as I like. My rights come from a since of what is right and wrong, the rights and wrongs of what you do are yours to live with, as well as I have to live with what I do.

I don`t think the ongoing debate will change anyone, but have at it.:banghead:

[Blackhawk]

buzz_knox said:Blackhawk, I think we can see the beginnings of a consensus. Then I am happy! :D