• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is due process a human right? (from a moral perspective)

Is due process a human right?


  • Total voters
    69
no business will hire a private arbitration firm that doesn't have an excellent reputation for fairness.
ha-ha

Now, a new analysis of almost 9,000 arbitration cases from the securities industry confirms what many have long suspected: The system is biased against consumers — and not just because big companies have more money to spend on lawyers.

When it comes to arbitration, the study finds, companies have a big information advantage in fishing for arbitrators who are likely to rule in their favor.

Making matters worse, the arbitrators themselves know that being pro-company in one case greatly increases their chances of being picked for future cases.
 
And according to you. You wrote:

You're saying that if the Nazis didn't recognize their rights, then the Jews did not have any rights.

And?
Yes, but if the Nazis didn't violate their rights, then they didn't do anything wrong by murdering them. It would be like you killing an insect.

Who says? When did you connect right and wrong with rights and why? "For an example", the 10 Commandments say murder is wrong...where in the Bible does it discuss rights? (note, the Bible only an example)

What about societies that dont even have the concept of rights, like the San? They still recognize right and wrong. Do the San have any rights? If so, who says? (Their national govt does now.) But...did they have rights before that
?

Insects have no rights.

Why dont insects have rights? How do you know?

Again, your position is that the Nazis did not violate the rights of the Jews they tortured and murdered, correct?

If the Nazis didnt recognize rights for the Jews then how could they violate them? The Jews may have considered that they had rights...but as I wrote...nothing stops them from being violated unless there is also a mechanism in place to protect/enforce them. Rights dont "do anything." Correct? They arent a magic wand that protects people.

That doesnt mean that torturing and murdering them was acceptable. It was wrong.

Now please answer the questions in this post. Dont ask more questions...answer them directly.
 
ha-ha

Now, a new analysis of almost 9,000 arbitration cases from the securities industry confirms what many have long suspected: The system is biased against consumers — and not just because big companies have more money to spend on lawyers.

When it comes to arbitration, the study finds, companies have a big information advantage in fishing for arbitrators who are likely to rule in their favor.

Making matters worse, the arbitrators themselves know that being pro-company in one case greatly increases their chances of being picked for future cases.

Interesting, but the study only analyzes Finra cases - which is not a representative sample of "private" arbitration. Finra is a government-sanctioned regulator, overseen by the SEC. Calling it private is like calling the Fed private: technically true, but wildly misleading.

The two biggest truly private arbitration providers - AAA and JAMS - weren’t included in the study.

Remember the ancient proverb: everything the government touches turns to shit.
 
If the Nazis didnt recognize rights for the Jews then how could they violate them?

This is why I don't bother with most of your responses. I'm not going to argue about human rights with someone who wrote the above.
 
This is why I don't bother with most of your responses. I'm not going to argue about human rights with someone who wrote the above.

Because I'm right and you cant argue it. You cant even figure out where rights come from...so how do you know the Jews had any?

You couldnt respond to the questions on the San either. You cant discuss why other animals dont have rights. You believe in rights as a higher power's grant to mankind. No more real than the Christian sky daddy.

Rights are a man-made concept. You havent come close to proving otherwise. Now you just want to hide.
 
The two biggest truly private arbitration providers - AAA and JAMS - weren’t included in the study.
Our empirical analysis and model focus on arbitration in the securities industry. We conclude the paper by showing that the insights from our setting extend to consumer arbitration more broadly. First, we discuss how the mechanism we illustrate in our model extends to other settings and other arbitrator selection systems. Second, we construct two additional data sets covering consumer arbitration cases administered by the two largest arbitration forums, AAA, and JAMS. These forums are used for consumer arbitration across over 8,000 nancial rms (e.g., Wells Fargo, Citibank and American Express) and non-nancial companies (e.g., AT&T, Macy's and United Healthcare). We replicate our main ndings in these settings, with the caveat that data are relatively sparse and span a wide range of industries and cases, leading to noisier and less reliable estimates of arbitrator bias and selection. Nevertheless, our general sense from this analysis is that our results may apply to consumer arbitration beyond just nancial services.
 
Our empirical analysis and model focus on arbitration in the securities industry. We conclude the paper by showing that the insights from our setting extend to consumer arbitration more broadly. First, we discuss how the mechanism we illustrate in our model extends to other settings and other arbitrator selection systems. Second, we construct two additional data sets covering consumer arbitration cases administered by the two largest arbitration forums, AAA, and JAMS. These forums are used for consumer arbitration across over 8,000 nancial rms (e.g., Wells Fargo, Citibank and American Express) and non-nancial companies (e.g., AT&T, Macy's and United Healthcare). We replicate our main ndings in these settings, with the caveat that data are relatively sparse and span a wide range of industries and cases, leading to noisier and less reliable estimates of arbitrator bias and selection. Nevertheless, our general sense from this analysis is that our results may apply to consumer arbitration beyond just nancial services.

The "we construct" part means models they made, not actual cases.
 
@Gimmesometruth

I would also add that myself and my family have all had disputes with credit card companies, ebay, and amazon, and I have no complaints. And it didn't take forever and cost a fortune.
 
Because I'm right and you cant argue it.

No, it's because you're a collectivist who doesn't believe in human rights. It's like a thief who steals because he doesn't believe in property rights. If I were you, I would keep it to myself, because philosophically it puts you right along side Nazis and commies and that is not good company.
 
The "we construct" part means models they made, not actual cases.
No, they applied the grading system to those cases from the forums you claimed were not used. You started off making an absolute claim that no company would used a biased arbiter (wish was stupid to begin with), when that blew up in your face you hand waved about the study using FINRA data, as if it is impure for your taste (who the **** cares) and then this "thet didn't use x & y", you got that wrong too.

Now you toss out this anecdotal blurt:
I would also add that myself and my family have all had disputes with credit card companies, ebay, and amazon, and I have no complaints. And it didn't take forever and cost a fortune.
as if I said anything about time/cost.

The only reason I respond to you is to see what kooky crap you will post next.
 
We can use some of the language in the 5th amendment of the US Constitution as a basis for what due process is here.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

If you have different ideas about what due process is, then answer appropriately and explain what you think is different. If you aren't satisfied with the poll options, then please explain your rationale below.

I think this is relevant now because it has become clear that some people think that this isn't a human right, but a privilege extended to certain classes of people e.g. citizens of the country where they are present. While there are legal questions about how rights are preserved and maintained in an international context but for this poll I just want to see how people feel from a moral perspective - it's not about specific legal mechanisms for enforcement.
There is no such thing as human rights.

That is a made up term by societies which changes depending on where and when you are.

No rights are inherent just like morality does not actually exist.
 
No, it's because you're a collectivist who doesn't believe in human rights. It's like a thief who steals because he doesn't believe in property rights. If I were you, I would keep it to myself, because philosophically it puts you right along side Nazis and commies and that is not good company.

I believe in human rights...where did I ever say I didnt? Please quote it. Dont lie just because you've embarrassed yourself.

I have continually said that rights are a man-made concept...and in the US we recognize them in the Const. and protect and enforce them. So of course Americans have rights.

Millions of things are man-made...and they exist...cars, houses, horseshoes, contracts, public policy, the concept of equal status, umbrellas, official titles like captain and admiral....

Your obvious lack of understanding rights has caused you to blunder badly.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as human rights.

That is a made up term by societies which changes depending on where and when you are.

No rights are inherent just like morality does not actually exist.
I didn’t say about something “inherent”. The color blue is a cultural fiction to some degree but still useful to talk about. If I ask you what shade of blue you prefer, you don’t have to presuppose some divine or natural authority for your preferences to exist.
 
I have continually said that rights are a man-made concept...and in the US we recognize them in the Const. and protect and enforce them. So of course Americans have rights.

The constitution recognizes some, but also violates some.

Where do human rights come from? Be specific.
 
I believe in human rights...where did I ever say I didnt? Please quote it. Dont lie just because you've embarrassed yourself.

I have continually said that rights are a man-made concept...and in the US we recognize them in the Const. and protect and enforce them. So of course Americans have rights.
Millions of things are man-made...and they exist...cars, houses, horseshoes, contracts, public policy, the concept of equal status, umbrellas, official titles like captain and admiral....

Your obvious lack of understanding rights has caused you to blunder badly.

The constitution recognizes some, but also violates some.

Where do human rights come from? Be specific.

Afraid to quote the entire post again, eh? Because you cant respond to it. And you quoted the answer to your question :rolleyes:Your posts only get stupider and more dishonest.
 
I believe in human rights...where did I ever say I didnt? Please quote it. Dont lie just because you've embarrassed yourself.

I have continually said that rights are a man-made concept...and in the US we recognize them in the Const. and protect and enforce them. So of course Americans have rights.

So what does that mean exactly? Do I "make" my own rights?
 
So what does that mean exactly? Do I "make" my own rights?

It's been explained to you many times. Why didnt you understand them? Maybe you were too busy rejecting them to bother thinking it thru. It's explained in the post you responded to :rolleyes:
 
It's been explained to you many times. Why didnt you understand them? Maybe you were too busy rejecting them to bother thinking it thru. It's explained in the post you responded to :rolleyes:

I suspect you believe our rights are "granted" to us by benevolent politicians. That position is incoherent, and is equivalent to not believing human rights exist.

Whatever rights you have, they cannot be "granted" to you by another person. A "granted" right is a contradiction in terms. The whole idea of a right is for you to act without permission.

Consider a pregnant woman's right to have an abortion. To exercise this right, must she first receive permission from the state? Of course not, because if that's the case, then her "right" to have an abortion is actually a state-granted privilege.
 
Consider a pregnant woman's right to have an abortion. To exercise this right, must she first receive permission from the state? Of course not, because if that's the case, then her "right" to have an abortion is actually a state-granted privilege.
Doesn't the fact that many states have made abortion illegal make the premise that it is a right....moot?

It is not an unalienable right, it has been removed in most jurisdictions, and was illegal before Roe.
 
Doesn't the fact that many states have made abortion illegal make the premise that it is a right....moot?

No more than government censorship makes the right to free speech moot.

The existence of a right is a moral claim. The violation of that right is an action against that claim. Your rights don't vanish when they are violated.
 
I suspect you believe our rights are "granted" to us by benevolent politicians. That position is incoherent, and is equivalent to not believing human rights exist.

Nope. Not remotely. I use the word "recognize" for a reason.

Whatever rights you have, they cannot be "granted" to you by another person. A "granted" right is a contradiction in terms. The whole idea of a right is for you to act without permission.

Nope, not remotely. I use the word "recognize" for a reason.

Consider a pregnant woman's right to have an abortion. To exercise this right, must she first receive permission from the state? Of course not, because if that's the case, then her "right" to have an abortion is actually a state-granted privilege.

When are you going to answer my questions? All you do it keep bobbing and weaving and throwing stuff out to see what sticks.

Yes, but if the Nazis didn't violate their rights, then they didn't do anything wrong by murdering them. It would be like you killing an insect. Insects have no rights.

Who says? When did you connect right and wrong with rights and why? "For an example", the 10 Commandments say murder is wrong...where in the Bible does it discuss rights? (note, the Bible only an example)​

What about societies that dont even have the concept of rights, like the San? They still recognize right and wrong. Do the San have any rights? If so, who says? (Their national govt does now.) But...did they have rights before that?​
--and--

Do any other animal species have rights? Why or why not?

Work these out, answer them, and you'll be closer to the answers for your questions.
 
Last edited:
"Human rights" in a universal sense don't exist. I'm not really sure what you're appealing to outside of the laws of a nation state to justify the seemingly universal claim of "human rights".
In a 'universal' or tangible sense, rights don't exist, nor do morals. Clearly throughout history, and still today, the worth of an individual human life amounts to the value of dust on a bookshelf, no matter the status of one human next to another.

However, it is a common belief that human beings are naturally moral in the sense of right and wrong. Once we became sentient through evolution and developed communication, instinct became emotion. Emotion led to empathy and compassion which puts us in this place of morals, ethics and rights which people fight and die for. And will continue to fight for even if a person has to die for people whom they do not know, which can probably be traced back to instinct in the form of the need to preserve our species, though noone seems to take this type of thought to its simple origins. Most are driven by an ideology instead, which is actually manipulation of people by the hierarchy of the privileged few that plays on the basic concept I've described (and is a whole other situation I could blather about but won't).

So yes, due process is morally correct and a human right.
 
In a 'universal' or tangible sense, rights don't exist, nor do morals. Clearly throughout history, and still today, the worth of an individual human life amounts to the value of dust on a bookshelf, no matter the status of one human next to another.

However, it is a common belief that human beings are naturally moral in the sense of right and wrong. Once we became sentient through evolution and developed communication, instinct became emotion. Emotion led to empathy and compassion which puts us in this place of morals, ethics and rights which people fight and die for. And will continue to fight for even if a person has to die for people whom they do not know, which can probably be traced back to instinct in the form of the need to preserve our species, though noone seems to take this type of thought to its simple origins. Most are driven by an ideology instead, which is actually manipulation of people by the hierarchy of the privileged few that plays on the basic concept I've described (and is a whole other situation I could blather about but won't).

So yes, due process is morally correct and a human right.
I got a text from my sister containing an anecdote about Margaret Mead. Although it is apocryphal, it is still relevant:

"According to a commonly shared story, the anthropologist Margaret Mead was supposedly asked by a student what she thought was the earliest sign of a civilized society. There are many variations of the anecdote, but the general details are similar: To the student’s surprise, Mead replied that the first sign of civilization is a healed human femur—the long bone that connects the hip to the knee.

Mead proceeded to explain, as the story goes, that wounded animals in the wild would be hunted and eaten before their broken bones could heal. Thus, a healed femur is a sign that a wounded person must have received help from others. Mead is said to have concluded, “Helping someone else through difficulty is where civilization starts.”

It is, to be sure, a beautiful, “feel-good” story—one that puts kindness, altruism, and collaboration at the heart of being human. One version, published by Forbes at the start of the pandemic, vaguely references an archaeological site “15,000 years old” where the femur was supposedly found—suggesting that these qualities are deeply embedded in human history. It’s no surprise that the anecdote began recirculating online during a time of historic uncertainty and isolation."

Altruism, I believe, is not a uniquely human trait, but it is a relevant demonstration to the concept of civilization. The instinct to help others is directly connected to the concept of "fairness".

I, and others, have argued that "Due process" is, of course, a human invention. As is philosophy. But the question posed by the OP is "Is due process a human right? (from a moral perspective)". Since both morality and human rights are, of necessity, a human construction, "rights" are only effective if enforceable. That is true of all laws, and, by extension, rights.

Arguing about the necessity of government enforcement or the existence of God is immaterial and irrelevant to the question (yes, they are different things). The point is expectation and consensus.

Some of us have referenced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - itself a product of human endeavor. Its point, of course, is to express the consensus of the world body and set forth its expectation of its members. It is thus an aspirational expression. That is all the OP is asking of us: what are YOUR expectations? I, personally, believe due process is the seminal human right. No other "human right" can exist in its absence. Thus, "Due Process" is a "human right" - indeed THE human right.

"Rights" can always be violated or ignored - we're increasingly aware of that in this country - but, from a moral perspective, that violates our personal sense of "right" and wrong. That answers the question pretty definitively, doesn't it?
 
I suspect you believe our rights are "granted" to us by benevolent politicians. That position is incoherent, and is equivalent to not believing human rights exist.

Nope. Not remotely. I use the word "recognize" for a reason.

Whatever rights you have, they cannot be "granted" to you by another person. A "granted" right is a contradiction in terms. The whole idea of a right is for you to act without permission.

Nope, not remotely. I use the word "recognize" for a reason.

Consider a pregnant woman's right to have an abortion. To exercise this right, must she first receive permission from the state? Of course not, because if that's the case, then her "right" to have an abortion is actually a state-granted privilege.

When are you going to answer my questions? All you do it keep bobbing and weaving and throwing stuff out to see what sticks.

Yes, but if the Nazis didn't violate their rights, then they didn't do anything wrong by murdering them. It would be like you killing an insect. Insects have no rights.

Who says? When did you connect right and wrong with rights and why? "For an example", the 10 Commandments say murder is wrong...where in the Bible does it discuss rights? (note, the Bible is only an example)​
What about societies that dont even have the concept of rights, like the San? They still recognize right and wrong. Do the San have any rights? If so, who says? (Their national govt does now.) But...did they have rights before that?​

--and--

Do any other animal species have rights? Why or why not?

Please answer these and you'll be closer to the answers for your questions.
 
Back
Top Bottom