 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
 Originally Posted by NeedKarma
We were British citizens who were brough under tyranical rule by our government, the Parliament of England and the King of England. We experienced what can happen if a government really does decide to put it's boot down on your head. That fact became the historical background under which our nation was formed. And world history both before and since then makes the point ever more clear to us. So the Founders put the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution specifically because they feared it happening again, only this time from a government based on THIS side of the pond. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
You'd know that if you had read the OP. But as usual, you skip what you don't like and try to change the subject. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Let me see. It must have been 3 or 4 years ago when a news article appeard about the following: (No, at this late date I can't remember the source.) However, a printing company in Canada turned down a job from some homosexuals bucause they didn't want to do that kind of work. Well, the results were that the gays took the printer to court. The printer had to pay a judgment to the gays and give a public apology. That doesn't sound like freedom to me. Maybe the reason NK feels comfortable in his position is that he has never attempted to exercise his God-given rights and run afoul of a bureaucrat-------YET! |
||||
|
||||
|
It's your opinion that there is no God, but we can call it something besides "god-given" rights. Call it natural rights if it makes you feel better.
I'm not willing to enter into an ultimately futile debate about the existence/non-existence of God, but I do think the issue of "natural rights" warrants closer investigation. What exactly do we mean by "natural rights"? Please bear in mind that I am not looking for examples, but rather a definition. To me it seems absurd to suggest that there are any rights that are "natural", as they are entirely synthetic in their conception. When observing nature I see no rights whatsoever, in fact the only rule seems to be "there are no rules". It is force that rules the day in nature, not respect for "rights". This brings me to my next query. What exactly is it that makes ANY right meaningful? Here in Australia I enjoy certain rights, such as property, privacy, etc. These rights serve me very well. They protect me, and enable me to live in a certain amount of peace. However if I were living in, let's say Sierra Leone, I am highly dubious as to whether these rights would have any meaning at all. Is this because I would not have them in that country? Or simply that they would be no reason for others to respect them? Is there a meaningful difference? These questions are rhetorical for the most part I must admit, I do have my own answers for them. However I would be intersted in hearing other opinions on the subject, which I feel shows great potential for reasoned a debate/disscussion. |
||||
|
||||
|
It is a very complex discussion but I'll give a very simple answer. You may want to check out the writings of philosopher John Locke ,who identified universal natural rights not subject to surrender in the social contract or the sovereign .
Included among these were "life, liberty, and estate (property)" . It would not matter where on earth you live .The social contract could not deny the individual these rights and the individual has a right to defend them against tyranny. These natual rights formed the basis for the English Bill of Rights,the American Declaration of Independence ,the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen ,and the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The founding fathers of the United States were diverse in religious denominations, but all had a distinct grounding in a universal power of goodness in the cosmos from which mankind was endowed with inalienable rights. In the end you are correct in saying that any right is dependent on your ability to keep them. What the enlightenment philosophers were saying is that the 'Prince' had no inherent right to deny you your natual rights.All laws are to be judged as to their adherence to natural rights ,and any law that violates natural law is no law at all. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by 450donn
The same is true with middleage people. A way can be found to take care of it. You might have to change your standard of living but you can do that in order to live or help a loved one to live. I changed my standard of living in order to afford more insurance and avoid that hassle. My choice. Your choice might be different. At least we have a choice. So far. When did this world change from believing that people work for what they earn to people believing that someone else should give them everything for free?[/QUOTE] I am afraid there are more people who believe that than not. They are willing to give up a perfectly good style of government that other countries admire enough to copy at least large parts of it, in exchange for handouts from the richer people who only do it because they are forced to by the government. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
It seems to me that the only reason I have any rights at all, is because they are guaranteed by the government, the "soveriegn" if you will. In this sense I see ALL rights as being "civil rights", rather than "natural", I am very much more in the Hobbes camp if you like (however I have my problems with him as well). This may seem as being neither here nor there, and of little consequence either way. After all, it doesn't matter from what source these rights are derived, the fact is we have them, and that's all that matters isn't it? For myself, I think it is significant if we are to consider what purpose these rights are to serve. If we are to view them as "natural" or "God-given", then we have no place from which to to alter or remove these rights, irrespective of whether they have any use at all. Even if such rights had become detrimental to the well being and freedom of a society, we would have to live with them anyway. If we are to view them as completely synthetic, they may be altered to serve the necessities of a "free" society in any particular context. Of course there are those rights of which cannot I conceive being absent in ANY free society, such as property, but this does not make them "natural" in any sense of the word. |
||||
|
||||
|
Yes Hobbes argued that rights are abstractions.
In the case of the US rebellion the sovereign proclaimed a right to tax the colonist property(and other "intollerable acts" ) and they in turn proclaimed the social contract broken because of the issue of representation. The social contract as defined by Rousseau was only valid if it was validified by the consent of the governed . "Thus, the question of whether justice can be achieved in society may not depend on whether individuals can be forced to comply with civil authority but on whether individuals and civil authority can act in harmony with, and fulfill their moral obligations toward, each other. Moreover, there may be a moral obligation to comply with civil authority only if that authority is legitimate (i.e. if that authority is based on a fair and just agreement among the members of society). Natural rights defined a boundary that the sovereign could not cross . As I mentioned ;in the end it mattered not that they believed it ,as much as the fact that they took steps to defend their rights against the sovereign. So there is certainly an element of the Darwinian nature your described . But natural rights were postulated with the idea of certain moral restraints beyond the law of the jungle.(I will not go into the debate over whether these are derived from the construct of the human mind or 'God given') |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Presidential pardon
[ 2 Answers ]
When a person is convicted to a term of imprisonment with hard labour and on the course of serving his term the fellow is given a presidential pardon while the case still hang on him. Does a new government own the privilege to reign the same person to court on the same charges.
Presidential elections
[ 7 Answers ]
If a presidential nominee dies two days before the elections, what happens?
Presidential Election
[ 11 Answers ]
Who are you for, I personally are for Barrack obama AND of COURSE who else should win, but really those 2 are biggest and it isn't even like I live there , I'm in ireland
Presidential history
[ 2 Answers ]
What happened in Bufalo New York on September 6th 1901?
View more questions Search
|
