Do we have Natural Rights?

[gorfle]

Poll question: Do we have Natural Rights?

One of the fundamental prerequisites to claiming a right to firearm ownership is the understanding that man has a natural right to life and liberty, and the right to defend those.

If you don't have a natural right to life and liberty, and the natural right to defend them, then discussions about firearms rights become fairly moot.

Do you believe that we have Natural Rights?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

edit to fix spelling.

[valerief]

1. Are guns natural? nt

[spin]

4. Perhaps your question should be...are weapons natural?...

That would include clubs, spears, knives etc.

[gorfle]

7. This was not the question.

The question is not about weapons at all.

The question is, are there natural rights, such as the right to life and liberty, and is it a natural right to be able to defend them, even with your bare hands.

[valerief]

45. Honestly, I wish Max Baucus was afraid of Americans using guns right now. nt

[Union Label]

40. Very good question nt

[krispos42]

41. As natural as a printing press n/t

[valerief]

43. Speech only needs a mouth. nt

[krispos42]

59. And self-defense only needs a limb

Regardless, the printing press is both vital, necessary, and protected.

[mzteris]

2. I wish most were mute . . .

:eyes:

edit to add: ah - I see you changed the spelling. But I still wish most were mute.

This is a completely bogus "argument" and you know it.

[valerief]

44. All gun-love arguments are. nt

[Buzz Clik]

3. One cannot defend life and liberty without lethal force?

Bullshit.

[gorfle]

8. I did not claim that.

I did not claim that life and liberty cannot be defended without lethal force.

But lethal force is usually the ultimate protector of life and liberty.

Every nation on earth has a lethal military force formed solely to protect their vision of life and liberty for their citizens.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Excellent. Let's leave the routine killing with guns to the military.

[eqfan592]

11. Oh why don't you take a walk..

...and come back when you have something even remotely intelligent to add to the conversation. Did you trust the Bush administration and it's use of the armed forces unflinchingly? I seriously doubt it.

[Buzz Clik]

15. You'd rather we all carry guns everywhere?

And don't bitch at me about lack of intelligent conversation on this forum. Ten times a day we're treated to the latest glorification of some poor bastard being killed -- either as an innocent victim or the worthy recipient of some homeowners bullet.

Seriously, if I want to talk to some knuckledragger about why we all need to be armed, I'd go elsewhere. If you want to promote infinite gun rights for every asshole with a pulse, you're going to meet some resistance at DU. And if YOU don't like it, you might find a place to post where everyone agrees with you.

[eqfan592]

17. Wow, way to apply a LOT of crap that I didn't say....

....to me. I have no problem having intelligent discourse on a subject. What you brought to the table was about as close to "knuckle dragging" as I've seen yet on this thread.

Next time, if you want to have an intelligent discourse, don't make bullshit statements and not expect to get smacked down for it.

[Buzz Clik]

18. Fascinating that you interject into a conversation with someone else...

... acting like I had just pissed in your cornflakes. Well, miss pissy, my comment was hardly bullshit in the context of the conversation, but you stuck your nose in the middle and ignored the context. Not my problem.

You get the last comment -- irrational, no doubt, but have at it.

[eqfan592]

20. First of all.

It's a public forum. Claiming that I "interjected" in a conversation is a convenient out for the weak of mind. If you want a private conversation, there's a private messaging system on the board.

Secondly, your comment was pure bullshit, even in the context of the conversation. Your comment implies that the military would be responsible for the personal safety of every citizen, and that normal citizens should not be allowed the use of lethal force in self defense. I'm sure this was not your intention, but that IS the implication of what you stated. Stating that the military should be left to the "routine" killing, when you know full well that lethal force is sometimes necessary in self defense, makes this very implication.

This is why I questioned the intelligence of the comment.

As for "irrational" replies, your reply to my first reply is a perfect example of it. You set up about half a dozen straw men arguments.

[Buzz Clik]

24. And there it is -- a little pressure, and you start contradicting yourself. Right on cue.

Your opening line to me:

Oh why don't you take a walk.. ...and come back when you have something even remotely intelligent to add to the conversation.

But, when it comes to YOU, it's a public forum. Your kind a dime a dozen, and that's a high price for idiocy.

Somebody mentioned a mute button? Here it is....

[eqfan592]

28. Ummmmm......

wtf are you talking about? My opening statement said nothing about this being a "private" conversation, simply that you should attempt bringing something intelligent to it. That hardly contradicts. Of course, you have me on mute now, so it doesn't really matter. But as for idiocy, well, I guess it must be awful hard for you to look in the mirror.

EDIT: And I love how you claimed I would have the "last word" yet you replied anyway. Something of a contradiction one might say? Or maybe an inconsistency at the very least? :P

[gorfle]

22. Most of us don't want that.

If you want to promote infinite gun rights for every asshole with a pulse, you're going to meet some resistance at DU.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone here propose infinite gun rights for anyone with a pulse.

For example, I'm all for NICS background checks for all sales, including private sales.

[Buzz Clik]

26. Please don't try to interpret anything I said to him as serious.

I get annoyed when assholes interject and pretend they know everything.

Backing up a couple of responses, I was trying to understand what you have in mind. I didn't understand your response to me (response #8). It seemed contradictory.

[eqfan592]

30. Yes, but of course...

...because leaving all personal security for the general population to the military is "serious," right?

And look at how you start to back peddle right away as soon as somebody points out the BS in your posts. "Oh, I wasn't being serious. I was just trying to talk like an ass for....fun?"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. Where did he say he wanted everyone to carry guns everywhere?

[Buzz Clik]

49. Nowhere.

[eqfan592]

52. lol, I love how he says that so frankly.

Basically, an admission that he was using BS straw men arguments. Oh wait, I'm sorry, he wasn't being "serious" when he talked to me, but I guess he is other times? *shrug*

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. Actually, every nation on earth has a lethal military force formed solely to protect

the lives and fortunes of their ruling class. Sometimes against the ruling class of other nations; often against the non-ruling class of their own nation.

[gorfle]

37. I concede your point.

The people in power obviously always covet their own interests over others. And obviously, dictatorships use their militaries to secure their power.

Nonetheless, the general point still stands - free nations do use lethal force to defend their concept of liberty.

[paulsby]

62. one can use free speech

w/o the internet, a pen, or a printer.

however, all of these devices are tools by which we can exercise these rights.

guns, similarly, are tools that some people choose to use to exercise their rights. interestingly, the right to keep and bear them is specifically mentioned in our constitution.

[onehandle]

5. Leading to the question, Why have laws?

Why doesn't DU just go ahead and change the Guns dungeon into the Looneytarian dungeon?

[gorfle]

6. I'm not advocating no rule of law.

I'm all for the rule of law. In my view the rule of law is the legal sanction and codification of what is naturally right, so that we have a concrete set of rules by which we protect what is naturally right.

Natural laws are an abstraction. Legal rights are the concrete representation of them. This is my opinion.

[iverglas]

47. "Why doesn't DU just go ahead and change the Guns dungeon into the Looneytarian dungeon?"

Because that would exclude the actual Republicans and other fellow travellers. ;)

[Xenotime]

67. Ha! Agreed!

[baldguy]

9. Yes, of course. And the right to a reasonable expectation of safety is one of those.

Unregulated access to devices designed for the sole purpose of killing human beings does not foster a reasonable expectation of safety.

[eqfan592]

13. Bullshit.

The original design intention of a device is meaningless when looking at the possible impact on safety of the general populace. People that make your argument seem to think that because a gun was "designed" the way it is, it is inherently more dangerous than many other objects that are far more potentially lethal, even if not by design.

And nobody is talking about "unregulated access" to anything in this conversation, so even mentioning it at this point in a reply to the OP is disingenuous at best.

[slackmaster]

42. What are you talking about, baldguy?

What devices designed for the sole purpose of killing human beings do people have unregulated access to?

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Why would this belong in the gun forum?

Non-gun policy related philosophy?

[eqfan592]

14. He's asking the question directly as it relates to firearms.

We all know it would get moved here eventually even if it was posted somewhere else, sadly.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. It's a horseshit question.

I'm a hunter. Is my 'right' to eat somehow subordinate to the right to defend yourself?

Natural rights are HORSESHIT. I have the right to bear arms in defense of myself and the State BECAUSE OF MY STATE CONSTITUTION. It's got nothing to do with some immaterial, 'god-given' supernatural mumbo-jumbo. We have a right to firearms because society has deemed them necessary. That is all.

[eqfan592]

19. Actually...

...I don't think the idea of "natural" rights involve the supernatural at all, or at least they don't have to. Otherwise, they wouldn't be "natural" rights, they'd be super-natural rights.

And if you feel natural rights are horse shit, then click the appropriate option. The OP is asking a question trying to gauge who believes there are natural rights and who doesn't. Saying that simply asking the question is horse shit is counter productive, as there are many out there who don't share your viewpoint. Here's your opportunity to cast your vote and make your case.

Condemning people for asking honest questions is not the way to go about things.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. The 'natural rights' as coined in sources like the Delcaration of Independence refer to a supernatur

al creator.

The OP's question has nothing to do with firearms, despite the clumsy attempt to frame it as such. It's a basic philosophy question. It doesn't belong here.

"If you don't have a natural right to life and liberty, and the natural right to defend them, then discussions about firearms rights become fairly moot."

See that? That's a dishonest attempt to frame the debate. That is horseshit

[eqfan592]

23. Actually, some would argue that....

...the "creator" as mentioned, allowed for the possibility that the "creator" was nature itself, and not a supernatural being. I've heard several professors make this argument, anyway.

But I do see you're point about the framing of the discussion in those terms.

[gorfle]

31. I don't mind if the question gets moved to another forum.

I don't mind if the question gets moved to another forum.

I asked the question specifically because the question of natural rights of self-defense arose in another gun-related thread, and I am interested in gauging the public response as to whether or not we have natural rights to life, liberty, and the right to defend them - specifically with firearms but in point of fact if we have the right to defend such natural rights then this could be done with any weapon, or with bare hands.

[gorfle]

25. So...

Natural rights are HORSESHIT. I have the right to bear arms in defense of myself and the State BECAUSE OF MY STATE CONSTITUTION. It's got nothing to do with some immaterial, 'god-given' supernatural mumbo-jumbo. We have a right to firearms because society has deemed them necessary. That is all.

Basically what you are saying, then, is that you have the rights your state says you have.

Thus you have no inherent right to liberty. So if your constitution said that it was legal for you to be a slave, that would be morally OK because your constitution says so?

No. Slavery is inherently wrong. Why? Because liberty is an inherent human right.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Yet there is language in our own constitution for the ownership of humans as property.

It took decades, (centuries by some measurment) and about 600,000 dead to actually bring about that liberty (and some will point out work that remains to be done).

It is only a 'right' insofar as we claim it for ourselves.

[gorfle]

36. I disagree.

The fact that as a society we said slavery was OK did not mean it actually was OK. I'm sure the vast majority of slaves at the time certainly did not think it was OK.

Whether or not society will respect and enforce such natural rights is another matter entirely.

[gorfle]

33. I did not mention god.

It's got nothing to do with some immaterial, 'god-given' supernatural mumbo-jumbo.

I don't believe in deities. I believe in natural rights, but I don't believe that they exist due to any supernatural being, any more than humans exist due to any supernatural being. Humans simply have certain natural rights as a consequence of being sentient beings.

I reject the notion that we have rights solely based on the consensus of society. This would mean that slavery is OK when the consensus of society says it is.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. In America 'natural rights' go hand in hand with a divine creator.

Natural rights/natural god. Inseparable. Deist language, specifically, if you are looking to the founding documents of our country.

[gorfle]

39. I'm not.

In America 'natural rights' go hand in hand with a divine creator. Natural rights/natural god. Inseparable. Deist language, specifically, if you are looking to the founding documents of our country.

I will grant you that in America, most people believe in god, so most people believe that natural rights, and in fact people, come from God.

I don't. I believe that we have certain inalienable rights because we are sentient, and that all sentient beings everywhere enjoy certain inalienable rights. It may very well be that non-sentient beings have rights also, but that is a debate for another thread.

Basically my view is that certain things are right and wrong regardless of what a group of people think about it. Slavery, for example, is wrong, no matter what anyone thinks about it. If you agree with this, then the logical question is, "why?" Why is it wrong? It simply is - it is contrary to our natural right to liberty. And we have this right even if there is no god.

[Euromutt]

60. I agree there's no such thing as "natural rights"

It strikes me that if the endowing entity, be it Nature or some deity, were serious about endowing us with "natural rights," that entity would have made it physically impossible for those rights to be violated. We wouldn't need a right to self-defense, because it would be impossible to deprive us of life or liberty against our will. But you try telling a grizzly or a tornado that you have a "natural right" to life. The fact is, nature doesn't care whether you live or die.

Human rights are, to my mind, a product of the human sentiment famously put into words by Rabbi Hillel, to "Do not unto others that which is hateful unto thee." We don't want anyone dictating to us what we can or can't say, or what gods we can believe or not believe in, or arbitrarily and capriciously taking away our lives, liberty or property, so it's only fair we extend that same courtesy Rights come into existence when a sufficient number of people agree that humans shouldn't do a certain thing to each other because they wouldn't want to have it inflicted upon themselves. That can be codified, but it doesn't have to be; what really matters is people's reaction to the idea of having a particular activity done to them. The overriding argument why slavery is wrong, for example, is the fact that a vanishingly small number of slave owners throughout history ever willingly became slaves themselves; if they don't want it done to them, it is wrong for them to do it to others.

Because it is not physically impossible to deprive us of life, liberty and/or property, but we universally would not want such a thing inflicted on ourselves, we must needs acknowledge a right for people to defend themselves from such depredations. That's only natural, but it's not "Natural Law."

[gorfle]

27. As I said.

The idea of natural rights relating to firearms came out of another thread here in the gun forum.

I posed the idea of natural rights specifically in relation to firearms, because, as I said in the original post, one of the primary arguments for firearm ownership is to defend our natural rights to life and liberty.

If we don't have natural rights to life and liberty, then the primary argument for firearm ownership goes away.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. So are you going to lump in hunting with 'life' because we need to eat?

This is overbroad, and doesn't relate to firearms. Take away any mention of 'natural rights' from any government document, and we still have almost every single State Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment protecting firearm ownership as a means of protecting society.

Some states go further and talk about protecting individuals, but only some states.

[gorfle]

34. I suppose we could...

So are you going to lump in hunting with 'life' because we need to eat?

If we agree that we have a natural right to life, then, by extension, we have a natural right to eat. If hunting is what is required to satisfy that right, then I would suppose that yes, you have a natural right to hunting.

Take away any mention of 'natural rights' from any government document, and we still have almost every single State Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment protecting firearm ownership as a means of protecting society.

This is because almost every state, and the federal government, has codified natural laws into legal laws. This is not surprising. Society has codified what is naturally right into a legal construct to insure homogeneity of application.

[iverglas]

46. how about a test for eligiblity to answer?

Otherwise, it will be kinda like one o' them "assault weapon" polls, hm?

Explain "natural rights" in 25 words or fewer.

Be sure to cite "natural law". And provide evidence that you have taken at least one course in which the notions of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were critiqued.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Well that would narrow the field a bit...

[iverglas]

51. thee and me, perhaps?

:hi:

[AtheistCrusader]

53. I wouldn't even meet the latter requirement.

Though I am aware of the two and have read much of their writings.

Alas, I am a product of the Seattle Public School System, and no further.

[iverglas]

56. well .......

Since my philosophy degree is getting a little musty at this point, we're probably on similar footing.

The mere fact that we've heard of them probably still leaves us just about the only ones qualified to answer. ;)

[gorfle]

55. 23 to 6 so far.

I guess our little slice of modern society has reached a consensus.

[iverglas]

57. oh yes indeed

What is 23 as a percentage of 6,774,xxx,xxx?

A consensus of people who have no idea what they're talking about. Well done!

I mean, if 23-6 were a consensus of anything. Maybe you need to look that up in the dictionary, too.

[gorfle]

61. Those grapes sour?

What is 23 as a percentage of 6,774,xxx,xxx?

Like I said - our little slice of modern society has reached a consensus.

A consensus of people who have no idea what they're talking about. Well done!

In spite of the fact that I provided a link to describe the matter under discussion.

I'm not surprised though. You don't get the answer you wanted and suddenly it's because - once again - everyone simply misunderstood.

[iverglas]

63. oh yes indeed

You don't get the answer you wanted

My dear fellow. I did not want any answer. And I couldn't care less what answers you got.

[jody]

54. Thank goodness that SCOTUS said "We look to this because it has always been widely understood that

the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), '{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.'"

SCOTUS' use of "pre-existing" is perfectly consistent with PA's use that said in "A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA" 28 Sept. 1776 "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

VT copied PA in its constitution (1777) but changed "inalienable" to "unalienable".

The idea of natural rights that our Constitution obligates government to defend is the only thing that protects a minority against a simple majority vote.

[iverglas]

58. good lord

jody just gets more incoherent with age.

"Majority" and "minority" just don't come into it here, jody dear.

We're talking about individual ...

[jody]

64. The lack of intelligent comments from those who support such rights as GLBT, health care, etc.

suggests either a limited knowledge of rights of minorities enumerated in our Constitution or unenumerated but protected by the Ninth Amendment.

It's disappointing that minorities who cherish a particular natural/inalienable/unalienable/pre-existing right ignore the simple political fact that democratic governments or those with a "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed to every State in this Union by our Constitution can easily infringe on those rights unless a majority of We the People unite with a minority of the People to protect those rights.

[iverglas]

65. jody! are you applying for reinstatement in my fan club??

I continue to be nauseated by your utterly moronic but still wholly disgusting attempt to liken gun owners to ethnic / sexual / religious minorities.

It's stupid, stupid, stupid. And nasty, nasty, nasty. You may have to demonstrate rehabilitation before I let you back in.

[eallen]

66. Nonsense on stilts

Bentham said it well. When boiled down to its essence, natural rights philosophy is just a grandiose pretense at crossing the is-ought boundary. The first task for anyone who wants to defend natural rights, and one I've never seen accomplished, is to provide a non-circular definition of the term "natural right."

Fortunately, natural rights are not a prerequisite to firearm rights, any more than they are a prerequisite to free speech rights. Real rights -- i.e., ones that actually count for something -- are argued on the basis of law, tradition, pragmatics, desire, and culture. If you want to preserve a culture of self-defense, as I do, please base it on something more substantial than natural right. Stop shooting blanks.

:hippie: