Members banned from this thread: jet57


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 31 FirstFirst ... 612131415161718192026 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 303

Thread: What is the basis for rights?

  1. #151
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    The question at hand though concerns the ought and its basis. Rights, in general, are concepts we use to describe what people ought to have with respect to interactions with others or government. The basis for ought under natural rights is our nature as reasoning and social beings. The ought under human rights is whatever people can imagine.

    Another basic distinction made is between natural and positive rights where rights are not created or designed by man vs those that are by positive (posited) law. The Declaration, for instance, refers to natural rights whereas the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to positive rights.

    We should also distinguish here between theory where everything is a human construct and nature itself which is not, unless you subscribe to some esoteric philosophy, like postmodernism.
    Again, "ought" is a thought not a reality until two people make it so. Positive and natural are really one in the same. The whole thing is theory, nothing more. It's proven wrong every single day all over the world.

  2. #152
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    We did?

    "The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. "

    --Lysander Spooner, "No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority" (1870)
    Spooner was a theorist, nothing more. The US constitution codifies a social contract that has nothing to do with natural or positive laws and thus makes no mention of them.

  3. #153
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    We? lol A handful of men wrote it, debated it and adopted it almost 250 years ago. In any case, it's a not a social contract. You're struggling with the terminology here. That's precisely why it's difficult to take your rejection of Natural Rights seriously.

    A handful of men that founded the country and the documents we live by yes. And it IS a social contract: it's a legal document the points of which are continuously recognized all over the country. The reason you don't take my argument seriously is because you can't beat it.

  4. #154
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    He only said one thing and it wasn't correct.
    Wrong again: he is exactly right.

  5. #155
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    lol And there it is.
    I as making a point: that's the entire argument with respect to "natural rights".

  6. #156
    Original Ranter
    Points: 297,707, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    416529
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    117,870
    Points
    297,707
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,300
    Thanked 53,474x in 36,449 Posts
    Mentioned
    1102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    I as making a point: that's the entire argument with respect to "natural rights".
    Jet, that's nonsense but I do give you credit for your honesty. Several of your compatriots have similar fears but they don't express them and that's probably because they understand how silly it sounds.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Mister D For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (10-01-2019)

  8. #157
    Original Ranter
    Points: 297,707, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    416529
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    117,870
    Points
    297,707
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,300
    Thanked 53,474x in 36,449 Posts
    Mentioned
    1102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    A handful of men that founded the country and the documents we live by yes. And it IS a social contract: it's a legal document the points of which are continuously recognized all over the country. The reason you don't take my argument seriously is because you can't beat it.
    You don't understand what social contract means and the reason no one takes your argument seriously is that it's not serious.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Mister D For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (10-01-2019)

  10. #158
    Original Ranter
    Points: 297,707, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    416529
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    117,870
    Points
    297,707
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,300
    Thanked 53,474x in 36,449 Posts
    Mentioned
    1102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Wrong again: he is exactly right.
    No, he's not.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  11. #159
    Points: 15,626, Level: 30
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 824
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Album picturesSocial10000 Experience Points
    Rationalist's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2002
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,391
    Points
    15,626
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    2,742
    Thanked 1,992x in 1,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    They're the state. btw I was making a point, so I'm not getting into assault weapons.
    You brought it up. You mentioned before that assault weapons were only for the purpose of killing, not self-defense. If you believe that, then are you saying that the state should have weapons that are only for the purpose of killing?

  12. #160
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Spooner was a theorist, nothing more. The US constitution codifies a social contract that has nothing to do with natural or positive laws and thus makes no mention of them.
    Social contract theory was invented by a theorist, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and argued by Hobbes and Locke and others, and they all tied it to natural rights as I explained earlier. The Declaration is at least partly based on the Enlightenment idea, but the Constitution doesn't codify a ascoail contract, it codifies the structure and function of a government.

    Spooner was a theorist who rejected social contract theory. It was, after all, a human construct, a fiction.

    Interesting that you theorize about social contracts but criticize other theorists.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (10-01-2019)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts