How does Inalienability of our rights always hold up?

Post Reply New Topic

The state infringing upon your rights doesn't mean they don't exist. One of our fundamental rights is the right to defend ourselves against those who infringe these rights. Do you think Jews in Nazi Germany had the right to resist their government? In more contemporary time how about the Arabs or Iranians in the Middle East protests of the last few years?

You're misunderstanding his use of the term "right". We tend to use the term in a very fluid and somewhat meaningless manner... maybe even politically. He uses it legalistically, which is a more accurate way to communicate. His argument is that a "right" is a legal term that gets its basis from the law (hence, enforceable). The only natural right is freedom of thought, since it's (currently) impossible to enforce restrictions. All other rights are derived from what you can protect legally (through force).

Instead of claiming these fundamental "rights", explain that you believe that it's morally "right" for a person to have free access to weapons for the purpose of self defense (or any other purpose).

As for the individual right to bear arms, look up the supreme court decision in 2008 on District of Columbia vs Heller.

That's exactly what it means. Rights are not moral things, they are legal things. And when the law no longer protects you, your rights have evaporated. So long as the courts stand ready to stop government in its tracks, rights exist. When government seeks to avoid Rule of Law, rights are imperiled.

Your concept of, "a right to defend yourself against those who infringe your rights," is ridiculous. It is cast in language that is far too broad, and far too absolute. You do have some rights to defend yourself. You have a right to use reasonable force to defend yourself against an apparent and illegal threat to your life or bodily intengrity. But note the second condition--illegal. You have no right to defend yourself against a legal threat to your life or bodily integrity. As for infringement of other rights, your legal rights are generally limited to bringing suit in the courts for the enforcement of your rights, unless the law permits other self-help remedies.

You persist in a concept of "rights" that is outside of the law. I maintain that rights only exist within a framework of law. You're a romantic, I'm a pragmatist. Neither of us will persuade the other until we are speaking the same language.

The logical definitions of these terms compel me to be a pragmatist as well. Even cicero claim there are laws to nature? What are these laws and how does he derive them? If I took the romantic and absolutist version then we would have inconsistencies to them. This is my whole point as well. The typhoid mary situation is an excellent example. Fnord would probably claim the greater good. If our rights were inalienable,these rights existed outside of a legal framework and were absolute then I would have to ask him and those with his beliefs how could the common good apply? How is it logically possible to always hold up our rights as inalienable, absolute, outside of society and its legal framework whatsoever? Therefore, I'm in agreement with you.

If these rights existed outside of any legal framework then I have to ask did they exist on our planet before man's genesis or beginning on the Earth? If they did, the burden of proof is on those who make this claim and believe this claim. How would these rights exist if no sentient being was around to enjoy them?

If I do have a right to defend myself then I have to ask how far does this right go? Do I have the right to use a nuclear bomb or dirty bomb against a person who is trying to strip me of my rights? Let's say I kill millions of innocent people? Did my defense of my rights infringe upon others? If yes, then how are they always inalienable, exist outside of a legal framework, exist in nature, and are absolute? It makes no logical sense to me whatsoever? By preventing infringements we're have introduced exceptions to our inalienable rights therefore rendering them alienable at different moments in time. By the very introduction of exceptions the very idea of inalienability and this being absolute in nature has to be nullified.

I guess you would be just fine living under the 'lawful authority' of a dictatorship. I wouldn't.

I wouldn't either. I just want to call a spade a spade. These are the claims made that I see. Our rights are inalienable. Our rights come from nature. Our rights are absolute. Can you show me in detail how these claims always hold up and prove them. Can you show how one derives a right from nature? Can you show me how our rights are inalienable absolute when we have cases like Typhoid mary when no matter how one slices it infringement of these inalienable rights has to occur? Either Mary's liberty had to be violated to protect other people lives. The other option that I noticed and the officials in NYC noticed was to protect her liberty people's right to life would have to be infringed. How does one resolve this inconsistency? If these inconstancies exist then how our are rights absolute, inalienable and how can they be derived from nature. I've always thought that nature couldn't have inconsistencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_i ... techniques

Those who are using these techniques enemy combatants claim they are protecting the American People's rights. To me, this doesn't wash. If our rights are inalienable and the claim is true then why do some groups of people have these inalienable rights and others do not especially if they come from nature and come from a creator? If one of us has the rights then shouldn't all people across the globe have these rights that come from nature and the creator? Why do they go out the window when the inalienable rights become inconvenient and impossible to enforce?

Are you incapable of critical thought? Nothing that I have written has ever suggested such a thing.

I recognize that my rights would be extinguished under the lawful authority of a dictatorship. Which would mean that I would turn to extra-judicial means to respond to it. There is no "right" to overthrow an oppressive government. Revolution is--by is essential nature--an illegal act. But that doesn't make it wrongful.

If you can't understand the distinction between that which is lawful and that which is good, then why are you pretending at participation in a discussion of rights?

Either you can't comprehend the concept of natural rights or you're just arguing semantics for some reason, there is no distinction. Lawful, wrongful, good, huh? You're for an "illegal" revolution because... It wouldn't be because you have rights outside government would you?

You are born with certain inalienable rights, more than could ever be written down on paper. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A oppressive government has no legitimacy.

If the right to self-defense is a moral imperative when it is done outside of the law (e.g. a state of nature), then rights are codified goods. They are not different things in that case. If they are different things, then what is the basis for taking extra-judicial means to depose of a tyrannical government?

How do rights exist outside of a codified framework and how do you derive them from nature? What are the laws of nature? Can you list them? Can you detail them out?

How are rights derivable from nature if these rights must have exceptions to resolve inconsistencies to them? Again, Typhoid Mary!

All you are saying is we have rights that come from outside of a codified framework. How do you derive this as so?

Does nature contain contradictions to it?

You're making theoretical and absolute claims that do not hold up when practically applied. You're treating our inalienable rights as though the inalienability is absolute when experience, practicality, and reality says no.

I have already demonstrated that none of these rights have any meaning. All of them can be alienated quite readily.

I am perfectly capable of understanding the concept of so-called natural rights. Just because I have rejected any practical significance to it, does not mean I don't understand it. Natural rights are no more than romantic notions. They have value only in their aspirational qualities. They inspire us to create better societies, and there is great value in that. But they are not rights and they are not enforceable.

I am, indeed, arguing semantics, because semantics are--at least in this case--important. If you act on the assumption that you have a broad, absolute right to defend yourself, and you act in that belief, what happens when you get arrested and hauled into court? You are not judged on your so called, "natural rights," you are judged on the basis of your actual rights--the rights that are defined by, and enforced in law.



I certainly maintain that they are different things. The one is a creature of law and enforced by it. The other exists outside of law and is only enforced by law after the fact, if the law chooses to recognize it.

So what is the basis for revolution? Politics, of course. When the political will rejects the existing sovereignty, then it will engage in revolution. The first act of a successful revolution is to retrospectively legitimate the revolution--to use the law to create a legal approbation of the acts which were, at the time they were committed, illegal. The law does not say, "this was justified by natural rights," the law simply says, "this was legal." The politician creates a romantic theory to support the legal change, but the romantic theory is irrelevant in law. It is only the act of the legislature or the judgement of the court that is relevant.

And that is sad.

The one thing I've learnt is that the strongest makes "right" (whether it's "right" or not).

Just how it goes.

Yeah, it stinks how it is sometimes with everyone in power taking from everyone underneath them, not only their money and using them as a resource for labor and voting, but taking from them their very rights. The reasons for the revolutionary wars of America and France were for less than some cases nowadays are, but there is nothing really to be done about it either.

Actually, that's not inalienable either (as you'd put it), because there's interference from external sources regarding those. There's plenty of places that say what you can or can't believe (only practicing Christianity in your head isn't Christianity), what you can or can't say (opinion), and if they could figure out how to change your thoughts, there'd be people who'd do that.

The motto of it all is that most people are controlling bullies.

You are misinterpreting. Freedom of thought, belief and opinion no where includes a freedom of religious practice, or the freedom to express an opinion.

A country that seeks to prohibit your religious practices cannot change your religious beliefs.
A country that restricts your freedom to express your opinions cannot change the substance of those opinions.

Your third point is the correct one. No one has figured out how to change your thoughts--it follows, therefore, that freedom of thought belief and opinion is the only legal right that cannot be abridged.

And you come nicely to the kernel of my thesis. Since there will always be those who seek to exercise power and control over individuals, it is in all of our best interests to ensure vibrant, active, independent courts that have the authority to impose the Rule of Law.