What are people entitled to?

[Kendo 2]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Nothing else. Anything else, you earn, or take.

 

The entire point of my stance in the debate. :wallbash:

 

@Aurielius

'sophist' :laugh:

[Sepherose]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Nothing else. Anything else, you earn, or take. The first may also be rendered forfeit in my book if you seriously mess up. (read: I approve of the death penalty.)

Well put RZ those ARE the inalienable rights, no more no less. Though off topic, I agree with the latter half of your statement also.

 

But those are not inalienable rights, they get trampled on all around the world. Just because you might live in a country where those rights are ensured by your government, does not mean they are the be all end all "everyone has them" kind of rights. The only natural rights we are afforded are to do what we must to survive, everything else is granted by laws and society, that is that.

[Ghogiel]

Appeal to authority and a bandwagon argument? This is the platform upon which you will construct your arguments?

YES. Yes it is. Founded on the FACTUAL statements of our founding fathers. It is my opinion based on solid and verifiable and well-documented facts.

Okay, I just wanted to be clear on that. The founding fathers were just people, and people can be wrong. Their statements regarding the truth of natural rights is not factual because of who they are, nor does the fact that they founded this country prove that what they thought was factual. However, these arbitrarily chosen rights aren't good enough for me. These rights are good, but not granted by nature inalienably. If you have other evidence to support your claim that these rights are natural and inalienable, please feel free to bring it to the table.

The founding fathers never said a word about natural rights they used the phrase inalienable rights which means if you check, a right that is "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor." so the phrase " granted by nature inalienably" is a conjunction of terms that is your own making not one ever used by the Constitutional Congress or the Declaration of Independence framers.

If one states that these rights cannot be taken away from the possessor, just because those rights say they can't be taken away, doesn't make it true, is called circular reasoning. one must demonstrate that they in fact cannot be taken away.

 

For example a US citizen in a foreign country may no longer have those rights, where they would have once had them.

 

I stated the simple facts so do not have to prove a thing, if you have a problem with the construction of the Declaration of Independence then thats your issue. Bringing in other countries is simply extraneous and irrelevant. It seems that you reserve the right to what you would like to call logical to yourself, am not going to play that sophist game with you.

That is fine. I am not saying you aren't stating facts. I am stating that what the Declaration of Independence states about its own contents are not an inalienable rights. You can disagree. choose to argue the point or not.

 

My point: The Declaration of Independence states inalienable rights. These rights are inalienable because it says that they are, is not a valid argument. I have called into question the assertion that these rights are in fact inalienable, provided examples where they are not, and asked for a logical argument where circular reasoning and special pleading is not used to form the argument.

 

The sophist is the one who is beaten in debate by logical reasoning. :thumbsup:

 

As already kvnchrist makes an excellent example of these inalienable rights being taken away from the possessor, whilst remaining solely on American soil, not that it matters imo, you only create special condistion at which they then apply, which defeats the idea that these are some how universal rights that cannot be taken away. but there it is.

 

The government giveth, the government taketh away.

 

Look at the Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. The rights given by another aren't rights, they are benefits of being in the good graces of that group or individual.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Ghogiel

[ffa1mf]

I am somewhat confused by the direction of debate as "rights", be they in a constitution or some other document, are not entitlements, nor are they real. "Rights" are ideas and simply words on paper and unless there is some form of system to support such "rights", they have no meaning. In all cases, persons who wanted to be "entitled" to "rights" took the idea of "rights" and then earned them - be it through the working end of a spear, sword, arrow or gun; political action/debate; civil disobedience; or some action.

 

The constitution of a country (any country) may identify rights, but if such rights were "entitlements" why are there so many interpretations and so much debate about what the meaning of such rights are? Why would a constitution require amendments if such rights are entitlements? Someone mentioned John Locke and the wording of a constitution. John Locke, as I recall, was of the opinion that such "rights" were not exactly entitlements, but that government should step in and take action when someone's rights were threatened. Again, this has been open to interpretation and debated endlessly by many since the constitution was written - so exactly what was it John Locke thought were "rights"?

 

No one writes a constitution or some other document because everyone is equally "entitled" to "rights".

 

It hangs on my office wall to remind me that what I have is earned and not given;

 

It is the soldier, not the minister who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.

It is the soldier, not the politician who has given us the freedom to vote.

It is the soldier, above all other people, who prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.

[ginnyfizz]

The concept of universal human rights goes back to Plato, continued via Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas and arriving later in the theories of John Locke and the framers of French and American revolutions/constitutions. The famous line about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the US Declaration of Independence is very much an echo of a near contemporary of Jefferson et al, the reknowned English jurist William Blackstone;-

 

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." -- Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765

 

The fundamental concept stated by Blackstone there has come down the centuries from Plato. Those rights do not cease to exist just because a government may stamp upon them. You may at times find it difficult to exercise them, indeed impossible if you have been executed for attempting to assert them. But it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

 

For example ,the whole death penalty debate (NO let's NOT start one, I use it as an illustration only) is centred on the right to life and whether or not Blackstone's last line "no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." , ie that heinous behaviour can forfeit your rights, is valid.

 

As that old Greenham Common song went "You can't kill the spirit..."

[Ghogiel]

The concept of universal human rights goes back to Plato, continued via Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas and arriving later in the theories of John Locke and the framers of French and American revolutions/constitutions. The famous line about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the US Declaration of Independence is very much an echo of a near contemporary of Jefferson et al, the reknowned English jurist William Blackstone;-

 

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." -- Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765

 

The fundamental concept stated by Blackstone there has come down the centuries from Plato. Those rights do not cease to exist just because a government may stamp upon them. You may at times find it difficult to exercise them, indeed impossible if you have been executed for attempting to assert them. But it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

 

For example ,the whole death penalty debate (NO let's NOT start one, I use it as an illustration only) is centred on the right to life and whether or not Blackstone's last line "no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." , ie that heinous behaviour can forfeit your rights, is valid.

 

Basically: All people always have these rights except when they don't or when forfeit or taken away. That is in direct contradiction to this side topic of the Declaration of Independence's definition of inalienable rights as put for by Aurielius,: "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor."

 

I'm very much reminded of a rationalism vs empiricism debate now that Plato and Aristotle have been brought up.

[ginnyfizz]

From the US Declaration Of Independence;-

 

"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 Declaration is actually silent as to whether an individual may in certain circumstances forfeit those rights, so I do not think that it is possible to say that it is in direct conflict with Blackstone. Nor does the Declaration define inalienable rights.

 

I do not feel that the concept of inalienable rights excludes the possibility of punishment for crime, which may be considered a forfeiture, as RZ1029 and Aurelius have stated.

[Nintii]

From the US Declaration Of Independence;-

 

"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 Declaration is actually silent as to whether an individual may in certain circumstances forfeit those rights, so I do not think that it is possible to say that it is in direct conflict with Blackstone. Nor does the Declaration define inalienable rights.

 

I do not feel that the concept of inalienable rights excludes the possibility of punishment for crime, which may be considered a forfeiture, as RZ1029 and Aurelius have stated.

 

Ok Ginny, this is off topicish, but can you imagine if "citizenship" and the "rights" it brings could oneday be something that you have to earn and not get just because you're born into that nation ... I'm thinking specifically of the movie called Starship Troopers.

Also, the UK had a plan whereby immigrants would have to "earn citizenship" that was supposed to be implemented in july 2011, but has since scrapped that idea.

Is this not really just a thought that might oneday be implemented and then what would happen to "what are people entitled to" ?

Again, the thought strikes me, aren't people being robbed by Government "privatising" stuff which your fathers worked so hard for, which was your right, your entitlement ?

[Ghogiel]

From the US Declaration Of Independence;-

 

"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 Declaration is actually silent as to whether an individual may in certain circumstances forfeit those rights, so I do not think that it is possible to say that it is in direct conflict with Blackstone. Nor does the Declaration define inalienable rights.

 

I do not feel that the concept of inalienable rights excludes the possibility of punishment for crime, which may be considered a forfeiture, as RZ1029 and Aurelius have stated.

I don't feel the concept of inalienable rights excludes the possibility of punishment for a crime either. Because it doesn't, as can be witnessed this actually happens. I still think the definition of inalienable rights, what ever definition thus far has been put forward, just doesn't qualify what is written down in these documents as universal inherent rights of people. Whether magically inspired or conjured in the minds of man it makes no odds. I have been wondering that if it is so universal, it seems rather fickle, and in an instant, on any soil, they aren't guaranteed to be upheld, so what is the big hoopla about them being inalienable, I even don't see them as particularly applicable to most people alive today, and even if you do have them they can voided through happen stance, and not just through forfeit.

[HeyYou]

You have the rights the government is willing to grant you, so long as it is willing to grant them. There are provisions in our constitution, or, various laws.... that provide for implementing Martial Law.... at which point, no one has ANY rights that the MILITARY doesn't give you.

 

There is no such thing as "God Granted", or "inalienable" rights. Everything is at the whim of someone higher in authority than you.