Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it is fairly obvious to everyone reading that those examples are grossly in opposite to the inalienable rights which we hold to be true.
But that wasn't always the case was it? At one time the right to enslave one human by another was considered a "natural right" so much so that it was codified into law and expressed the inalienable right to own property!
But that wasn't always the case was it? At one time the right to enslave one human by another was considered a "natural right" so much so that it was codified into law and expressed the inalienable right to own property!
So much so that in AD 32, a young Jew who was in a culture highly subject to presecution and very chauvenistic (for a lack of better term), spoke freely that the most highly treasured people should be women and children, the sick and the lame. He stated that everyone should be treated the same and not differently based on social standing, sex, ethnicity, or age. He was highly caustic to his own people, to the point that his own "people" had him crucified.
We can look back at the beginning of the USA, or any other country, and see the laws which have been passed which are not in accordance with simple human rights. The fact that all countries/civilizations have made laws which bind some and loose others does not mean that there are not simple human rights which we all have the "right" to enjoy.
The fact that some people choose to become subjects to others for beneficial needs (food, protection, etc) does not mean that same benfactor can then go around and bind more people to him/her just because he wants. Notice, nobody is going around calling for reparations on indentured servitude, only slavery. Why, because indentured servents were there willingly, to pay off a debt. Slaves were there involuntarily. Huge difference.
So much so that in AD 32, a young Jew who was in a culture highly subject to presecution and very chauvenistic...
And in 51 B.C.E a woman rose to power of an entire ancient empire, so without getting bogged down in a long and didactic discussion of life in 1st century Judea and what Jesus may or may have no condoned or disapproved of, what is your point?
Quote:
We can look back at the beginning of the USA, or any other country, and see the laws which have been passed which are not in accordance with simple human rights.
Yes, human rights are extremely simple when viewed through 20th Century lenses. Except in the case of the U.S. it took over 300 years to divine that simplicity.
Quote:
The fact that all countries/civilizations have made laws which bind some and loose others does not mean that there are not simple human rights which we all have the "right" to enjoy.
And where have I disagreed with that?
Quote:
The fact that some people choose to become subjects to others for beneficial needs (food, protection, etc) does not mean that same benfactor can then go around and bind more people to him/her just because he wants. Notice, nobody is going around calling for reparations on indentured servitude, only slavery. Why, because indentured servents were there willingly, to pay off a debt. Slaves were there involuntarily. Huge difference.
Besides being convoluted, you seem to be arguing with yourself, since you don't seem to be arguing against anything of substance that I have written.
I must differ on that point. The fact that all humans possess natural rights inherently makes natural rights superior over man-given/lawful rights.
Until you define natural rights, explicitly and with specificity and that definition is understood and universally recognized, it is meaningless.
There are individuals who will assert that it is their "natural right" to have sex with minor children (don't believe me just read what NAMBLA has to say on the subject). There are people, such as your example in Afghanistan who will argue that it is their god given natural right to subjugate women. In point of fact there are Christians who will argue along the same lines. So who is the arbiter of these "natural rights" you, me, and upon what basis would we defend our judgement? And what makes our individual judgment worthy of acknowledgment? I would suggest absolutely nothing without the consensus of society at which point, what was once natural law becomes one codified by man.
But as I originally argued, humans do have an innate sense of fair play, and justice. When that innate sense of justice and fair play, which I will call natural law for the moment" comes into contact with forces of injustice, the natural human instinct is to undo that which is unjust. Without this innate sense of justice and fair play, we as humans would be free to exercise all of the other innate behaviors which are not constructive to our survival as a species, that is why is it as important as codified law.
Natural rights are those rights that are ours simply by virtue of our existence. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are three that were specifically named in the declaration of independence. These are rights that are inalienable and irrevocable by government, because government did not grant them, they were granted by a far greater authority than that of government.
You might want to discuss that with the Japanese that were interred after Pearl Harbour. Their inalienable right to liberty was rather short-lived. I believe that "rights" are nothing but an illusion. Any right that can be taken away when people are angry or frightened is not a right.
Practically speaking, you have only those and only those rights society (as represented by government i.e. by top 10% +/- on the wealth pyramid) allows you to have. Civil, Natural, etc. rights is nothing but rhetorical, inflamatory BS exploited by the various political forces squabbling for power. You don't have natural rights, you don't have civil rights, you just have the rights you have under circumstances of your society, culture, socio-economic background, etc.. Needless to say that "circumstances" sometimes may change overnight. "Unalienable rights" do not exist in Nature.
Last edited by RememberMee; 08-18-2010 at 08:29 PM..
Right for life? Does that include the right to have a job, food, shelter, medical care? I can imagine how the right wing crowd twisting and twitching hearing these blasphemous words. Without the right to have a job, food, shelter, medical care "the right for life" is nothing but meaningless, rhetorical BS to brainwash wage slaving masses. "Pursuit of happiness" also is nothing but meaningless, rhetorical BS. Liberty, you bet, it's a meaningless abstraction everybody fills with his own content.
As long as social control specialists can keep plebeian consciousness in the abstract, owning classes have nothing to fear.
I agree, and I abhor the very idea of abortion. However, the intent of the Roe v. Wade ruling may save us Americans a great travesty in the end, follow my logic here...
Obamacare will eventually lead us into a socialized medicine system full of rationing and limited access (I believe at the direct intent of the writers). This has been surmised to create a two tier system, one of the haves and have-nots, where the haves just pay cash for the services and where the have-nots use the poor gov't system. In Canada this was outlawed, no private use of medicine is allowed, effectively keeping everyone in the system and not letting anyone out of the system to pay cash (unless they wanted to travel to the US). But when this happens in the US, there will be no other place to travel for the best care. There have been many that have postulated the US will also outlaw people going outside the system (of course not including the select senators and house members and POTUS who are exempt fromt he whole thing). So, what recourse would we have if such a law was enacted (said law would prevent cash paying patients from receiving care, likely quicker and better care than crummy gov't option)....Roe v. Wade states a person has the "right" to control what happens to their body. We could no less deny access to abortions than we could deny access to better care within the country via cash paying patients...thus, two-tier system will be alive and well. Of course, you will need to have some sort of payment options, but, they ability to go against the gov't run system will be there and in the end the whoel system will collapse and maybe we can go to a direct doctor patient relatioship again...
Having said all that, I stand by my first statement above.
Any country that does away with basic human rights of ANY person (regardless of size and potential) by brutally ending their developing life due to inconvenience and so sexual hedonism can flourish, is a country in deep trouble and the epitomie of moral degradation....only to get worse.
Right for life? Does that include the right to have a job, food, shelter, medical care? I can imagine how the right wing crowd twisting and twitching hearing these blasphemous words. Without the right to have a job, food, shelter, medical care "the right for life" is nothing but meaningless, rhetorical BS to brainwash wage slaving masses. "Pursuit of happiness" also is nothing but meaningless, rhetorical BS. Liberty, you bet, it's a meaningless abstraction everybody fills with his own content.
As long as social control specialists can keep plebeian consciousness in the abstract, owning classes have nothing to fear.
No, the basic right to life doesnt include a job, etc... it does include the right to safely come down the birth canal as an American into a land where there is great potential for a good future . The issue isnt a 'political ' one --- its the same right which your Mother afforded you and my Mother afforded me , and one which i know you believe in especially if youre a Father . Liberty is making RESPONSIBLE choices within the guidelines of morality , and never the wanton denial of anothers basic right to a life resulting from the urge to use a willing participant for an illicit orgasm. America no longer has a moral foundation to draw on nor does it care to have one anymore because the 'liberty' to act as one desires , trumps everything else . A narcisstic veil has been pulled over ones heart to accomodate a willful reprobate mind .
Liberty is making RESPONSIBLE choices within the guidelines of morality , and never the wanton denial of anothers basic right to a life resulting from the urge to use a willing participant for an illicit orgasm. America no longer has a moral foundation to draw on nor does it care to have one anymore because the 'liberty' to act as one desires , trumps everything else . A narcisstic veil has been pulled over ones heart to accomodate a willful reprobate mind .
Oh dear. So your idea of freedom than is that people have it as long as they make what you think are the "right" choices? However, when they make the "wrong" choice they shouldn't have freedom than? And, when they fail to make a choice that you deem a RESPONSIBLE one than presumably they should be incarcerated, or what?
This is my basic problem with those who want to claim some kind of "natural rights" basis for law. They'll deny until Kingdom Come, but what they are essentially saying is that you have to rely on THEM to tell the rest of what are natural rights are. I don't need YOU to tell me what my rights are. That is done in a different way.
Sir, we have a Constitution in this country. Now, if you want too, you can argue that codifies natural law. Personally, I don't particularly care one way or another. What I do care deeply about though is that that Constitution creates a system of laws. The problem with your analogy about abortion that you make above (and that is what it is) is that our system grants the US Supreme Court the power to say what is and what is not constitutional. That court has said by a vote of 8-1 that when states prohibit abortion in all circumstances they are violating the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
So, Sir, as far as I'm concerned you are wrong. You can keep rattling on about your notions of natural rights and law. The people who are important to me--the Supreme Court justices--have spoken and your side has lost. If you don't like it, you can try to have the Constitution amended.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 08-21-2010 at 04:17 PM..
Reason: Edited out reference to deleted post
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
