Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Philosophy For discussion about general and fundamental problems connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language


Thanks Tree30Thanks
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 19th, 2017, 02:03 PM   #31
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
First Peoples didn't have much/if any concept of rights at all.

The "life, liberty, and property" is a construct of man dating back a couple millennia + in western culture. Different societies with different constructs. Western society pretty much overrode and eradicated much of the First Peoples societies and tried to change their ideals by way of compliance. Some of the First Peoples ideals have been enveloped into our society, i.e. public lands are to be used by everyone, and on public lands you only take what you need and leave for the next person, etc.
I can accept that. What I am saying is that it is not "natural". It evolved with society. If you include that in your definition of natural, then this is only a semantics argument.
RNG is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 02:07 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I can accept that. What I am saying is that it is not "natural". It evolved with society. If you include that in your definition of natural, then this is only a semantics argument.
Pretty much. Natural rights evolved as man became more aware of his own.

Last edited by TreeDoc; October 19th, 2017 at 02:11 PM.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 02:14 PM   #33
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
Pretty much. In different societies it usually always differs. First Peoples were tribal and communal, they worked together for all, and in small groups that is easily doable. Western Society on the other hand was much larger and much more advanced, per se, and had government in some cases, in others they had rulers.
The other thing that the First Peoples had was small groups with what was effectively an elected dictator. Each group had a chief that had very strong powers. Basically they were an extreme socialistic society, but if you weren't pulling your weight, the chief could and would sanction you up to banishment, which in that culture was almost a death sentence.
RNG is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 06:53 PM   #34
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
Huh? When was the 1689 EBoR rejected?

Owning, the ability to personally own arms, was a right granted. All the quoting you did prior does nothing but admit to the ability to bear arms for the purpose of self defense or the defense of ones state. Owning arms doesn't equate to unconditional ownership of firearms, or any other weapon, of every stripe and nature, let alone an absolute right. The absolute right is your right to self defense, not to own or posses a weapon. The right to own a weapon came from the 1689 EBoR, prior to that only soldiers were allowed to posses weapons, i.e. swords, battle axe, etc. The common peasant or denizen was allowed only a small knife or wood chopping axe. As firearms came about, again only soldiers were allowed to posses them as they were the property of the State. In 1689, firearms and other weapons were then allowed to be owned by denizens/individuals, of which the law still limited what could be owned by an individual.
In 1776 the colonists put forth an amended version of their concept of Rights... unalienable Rights. Keep up with the thread. The balance of your question has already been answered.
discollector is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 07:02 PM   #35
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." II Corinthians 3: 17

"Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment. This was the period during the 17th and 18th centuries when thinkers turned to reason and science to explain both the physical universe and human behavior. Those like Jefferson thought that by discovering the "laws of nature" humanity could be improved.

Jefferson did not invent the ideas that he used to justify the American Revolution. He himself said that he had adopted the "harmonizing sentiments of the day." These ideas were, so to speak, "in the air" at the time.

As a man of the Enlightenment, Jefferson was well acquainted with British history and political philosophy. He also had read the statements of independence drafted by Virginia and other colonies as well as the writings of fellow revolutionaries like Tom Paine and George Mason. In composing the declaration, Jefferson followed the format of the English Declaration of Rights, written after the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

Most scholars today believe that Jefferson derived the most famous ideas in the Declaration of Independence from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government in 1689 at the time of England's Glorious Revolution, which overthrew the rule of James II.

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property
."

Natural Rights - Constitutional Rights Foundation

Another article challenges the critics on this:

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...-human-rights/
discollector is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 07:24 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
In 1776 the colonists put forth an amended version of their concept of Rights... unalienable Rights. Keep up with the thread. The balance of your question has already been answered.
LOL, They did no such thing in 1776, the inalienable/unalienable rights you/DoI refer to are natural rights as I have already stated. At no point have you answered any question I posed, the DoI in no way replaces or rejects the 1689 EBoR as you are trying to claim.

Now, lets say that the DoI does reject the 1689 EBoR like you are trying to claim, you just gave up your right to own a weapon. SMFH

Last edited by TreeDoc; October 19th, 2017 at 07:40 PM.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 07:45 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,469
Rights are given by the government.
If you doubt it, look at what has been put forth to show the origin of rights, laws, constitutions and court opinions.
That is how a government works.
There are places in the world that have different governments, and there, people have a different set of rights.
goober is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 08:39 PM   #38
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Rights are given by the government.
If you doubt it, look at what has been put forth to show the origin of rights, laws, constitutions and court opinions.
That is how a government works.
There are places in the world that have different governments, and there, people have a different set of rights.
Wrong. Read the thread. All of that was disproven.
discollector is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 08:43 PM   #39
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Another court ruling went further in their ruling:

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {unverified}

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

".The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence". United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

You have a Right to Life. Somebody can take it, but they will be held accountable. That was not the question. The question is, from where do you get YOUR Rights?
I suppose that if some are going to post lies already answered, we just have to go back and repost the truth. Let's add to it:

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe John Adams, second president of the United States

http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-s...nd-concepts-46

"That our Creator has a supreme right to prescribe a law for our conduct, and that we are under the most perfect obligation to obey that law, are truths established on the clearest and most solid principles…. There is only one source of superiority and obligation. God is our creator: in him we live, and move, and have our being; from him we have received our intellectual and our moral powers: he, as master of his own work, can prescribe to it whatever rules to him shall seem meet. Hence our dependence on our Creator: hence his absolute power over us. This is the true source of all authority…. The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having the foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction.

This law, or right reason, as Cicero calls it, … is, indeed, … a true law, conformable to nature, diffused among all men, unchangeable, eternal
."

Collected Works of James Wilson, vol. 1, ed. Kermit L. Hall and Mark David Hall (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2007), 500, 501, 523

Where do YOUR Rights come from?

Last edited by discollector; October 19th, 2017 at 08:54 PM.
discollector is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 08:44 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Wrong. Read the thread. All of that was disproven.
I can see why you might believe that.
But the facts don't support your belief.

The reality is, that rights depend upon the rule of law, which is dependent on the government in power at your location.

you have a different set of rights in North Korea than you do in Saudi Arabia, or Kansas.

And citing court decisions is using government to secure rights.
No government, no courts, no rights.
Thanks from RNG
goober is offline  
Closed Thread

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Tags
nature, rights



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is it nature or LongWinded Philosophy 3 September 13th, 2015 03:47 PM
Clinton, Obama Promote Gay Rights As Human Rights Around The World Mom Gay and Lesbian Rights 22 December 8th, 2011 02:40 PM
Gay Animals in Nature tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 14 April 19th, 2010 05:12 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.