Is due process a human right? (from a moral perspective) (5 Viewers)

[Juin]

So only politicians can enforce your rights. What happens when the politician is the violator of your rights?

It still does not address the fundamental quandary: if no rights exist at time t, then there is nothing to enforce or defend at time (t+1). Rights naturally must exceed and precede their defense or enforcement

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because the government might be wrong. Read the 4th amendment.

You omitted “once that (temporary permission) expires”. Either the temporary visa is or isn’t still valid.

 

[aociswundumho]

If you lived in a jungle, isolated from humanity, subject to animal predators, what would your rights be? Wait, didn't you once say that dinosaurs had property rights or something? Maybe I'm asking the wrong person.

Gee, why is it that the leftists here have such difficulty answering simple questions? Could it be that they don't actually believe the shit they are spewing?

 

[Dans La Lune]

It still does not address the fundamental quandary: if no rights exist at time t, then there is nothing to enforce or defend at time (t+1). Rights naturally must exceed and precede their defense or enforcement

None of what you said actually means anything. Sorry.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Gee, why is it that the leftists here have such difficulty answering simple questions? Could it be that they don't actually believe the shit they are spewing?

I answered your question just fine by exposing it non-existent foundation. And who actually determines "rights" if not government, which is a function of organized society? God? Ayn Rand?

 

[aociswundumho]

It still does not address the fundamental quandary: if no rights exist at time t, then there is nothing to enforce or defend at time (t+1). Rights naturally must exceed and precede their defense or enforcement

They believe any rights you think you have are in fact politician-granted privileges. This way the state can never do anything wrong, even when it murders people.

 

[Juin]

They exist at the point of challenge (time), under a societal construct.

How? A slave's right appeared when?

Hence why rights differ depending on the society and era of that society.

Natural right are rights that do not differ with place or time

Civil Rights are a thing because they were fought for, then enshrined in law.

But you insist it's a thing that did not exist before it was fought for. I find it absurd the thesis that blacks were naturally slaves.

 

[Gozaburo]

@devildavid
@rahl
@Lursa
@Gozaburo
@ataraxia

Please feel free to answer the above question.

Next you can tell us how white people were the source of rights for black slaves, which of course will justify lynching. I'm sure any white supremacists here will just luv your answer.

I’m not sure what’s difficult for you to grasp. The question you’re asking has nothing to do with the objective or universal nature of morality.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

You omitted “once that (temporary permission) expires”. Either the temporary visa is or isn’t still valid.

And that shall be determined by a judge, not some ICE agent with a quota to fill.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And that shall be determined by a judge, not some ICE agent with a quota to fill.

Nonsense, since we let TSA and customs agents make such calls.

 

[Juin]

They believe any rights you think you have are in fact politician-granted privileges. This way the state can never do anything wrong, even when it murders people.

It's quite an astonishing regression the thesis that we owe it all to the states, that it's all a privilege from the benevolent state. It turns Jean Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract on its head. Rousseau was idiotic enough to point out that rights are not gifts from the state, men in a state of freedom gave up rights which was theirs to the state in a Social Contract

 

[ataraxia]

In which case Jews had rights, independent of Hitler; the right not to be murdered, tortured and worked to death

If you or society thinks they should be treated fairly, then sure. If not, then no.

These rights don't exist outside of what and the rest of your society think.

So really the question comes down to: do you want to live in a society that treats everyone fairly? Or maybe just certain select people?

The answer to this question does not lie outside of what you think and what you want. It does not exist in nature. Wherever you go, there you are.

 

[rahl]

@devildavid
@rahl
@Lursa
@Gozaburo
@ataraxia

Please feel free to answer the above question.

Next you can tell us how white people were the source of rights for black slaves, which of course will justify lynching. I'm sure any white supremacists here will just luv your answer.

Rights are a philosophical human construct. They do not exist outside of that context.

 

[Dans La Lune]

How? A slave's right appeared when?

There was a civil war over it.

Natural right are rights that do not differ with place or time

So dinosaurs had rights?

But you insist it's a thing that did not exist before it was fought for. I find it absurd the thesis that blacks were naturally slaves.

Correct, freedom wasn't a right for black people in America before it was determined to be. Hence the abolition movement.

Rights are determined by society, and government is a function of society. They don't exist in the absence of other people. They don't apply to animals, except as humans determine, because rights are a function of what humans determine (in the absence of another higher species).

 

[ataraxia]

So only politicians can enforce your rights.

No, if I am strong enough, not only can I enforce my own rights, but I can take everyone else's too. It becomes all just about how strong I am.

So that's why we try to mediate strength through a government which holds the monopoly on violence- and then try to set up a system where we all have a say in how that power gets enforced, and with additional elaborate systems of checks and balances to ensure it doesn't turn into mob rule. Sure it's not perfect- but hey it's the best we have been able to come with so far. What's your alternative?

What happens when the politician is the violator of your rights?

Then you have abusive government. That's why we have tried to create governments with all sorts of elaborate systems of checks and balances. Sure it's not perfect- but hey it's the best we have been able to come with so far. What's your alternative?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Rights are a philosophical human construct. They do not exist outside of that context.

The same could be said about wrongs, yet many (if not most) can determine the difference between rights and wrongs.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Rights are a philosophical human construct. They do not exist outside of that context.

Basically, yes. How can rights be anything other than a function of what humans determine? One of the reasons we organize as a species and create communities of common interest is so that we are not subject to jungle law. These people think rights exist in the jungle? Are lions and bears violating your rights when they eat you?

 

[ataraxia]

It's quite an astonishing regression the thesis that we owe it all to the states, that it's all a privilege from the benevolent state. It turns Jean Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract on its head. Rousseau was idiotic enough to point out that rights are not gifts from the state, men in a state of freedom gave up rights which was theirs to the state in a Social Contract

Yeah, enlightenment thinkers thought that it was "natural" to treat everyone fairly. I think what they meant by the word "natural" was something like "common sense". But don't confuse the word "natural" with "existing in nature".

Surely you don't seriously think these rights exist in nature, without a state to enforce it. One Nat Geo episode would quickly disabuse you of that notion.

 

[ataraxia]

The same could be said about wrongs, yet many (if not most) can determine the difference between rights and wrongs.

A sense of fairness is common in humans. But that doesn't mean these rights exist in nature.

I don't think it's fair for the cheetah to catch and eat the newborn baby gazelle. But that's how things work in nature.

 

[Gozaburo]

But you insist it's a thing that did not exist before it was fought for. I find it absurd the thesis that blacks were naturally slaves.

They were, in a narrow sense. Nature trends closer to Nietzschean will to power than it does abstract or theological notions of natural rights and objective morality.

Indeed, libertarian whining about the NAP is among the weakest philosophical arguments for notions of universal morality. Many of its advocates don’t even understand the problems with asserting it exists.

 

[Dans La Lune]

It's quite an astonishing regression the thesis that we owe it all to the states, that it's all a privilege from the benevolent state. It turns Jean Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract on its head. Rousseau was idiotic enough to point out that rights are not gifts from the state, men in a state of freedom gave up rights which was theirs to the state in a Social Contract

Cooperation on the scale we as a species engage in is a testament to how advanced we are (civilization and government being the pinnacle of that advancement), not how primitive we are. Regression would be the absence of government and reliance on ourselves or small tribes. You're operating under the premise that government is always bad. The right-wing always say that government is bad, corrupt and cannot help you -- then they get elected and fulfill that campaign promise by destroying government from within.

 

[Nickyjo]

There are no objectively observed or discovered objective human rights. All that we can say objectively is there are human desires for certain rights, which very often are not fulfilled. What we desire for rights is not because these rights inherently exist in us from birth, but because human beings want certain rights to exist.

Hitler was the source of rights for Nazi Germany and all of its citizens when he was in power. If he said you had no rights you were literally stripped of them and treated as such. It didn’t matter if you thought or believed that you had human rights at birth. No one can use these beliefs in what their rights are to any practical application. Rights are just beliefs, not facts.

Objectively observed?… Hmmm… Long time ago, someone wrote “we hold these truths to be self evident…” Aka objectively observed.

 

[ataraxia]

Objectively observed?… Hmmm… Long time ago, someone wrote “we hold these truths to be self evident…” Aka objectively observed.

What they meant by "self-evident" or "natural" is something like "common sense"- like that it seems obvious and common sense that we should have a society where everyone can keep their property and life. Most humans have an innate sense of fairness, and so what these guys were saying was that it seems common sense that we would want to live in a society that is fair and just.

But surely you don't think fairness and justice exist in nature- outside of what we can define and enforce in modern civil societies?

 

[NWRatCon]

That (bolded above) should include adequate vetting of foreign nationals crossing the border into the US before they are released to roam freely within the US. I doubt that was possible with an inflow of 5K to 8K per day.

Put the blame where it belongs. Trump prevented the passage of a law that would have expedited that process, and Republicans have dragged this out for more than a decade, refusing to hire sufficient judges.

 

[Nickyjo]

What they meant by "self-evident" or "natural" is something like "common sense"- like that it seems obvious and common sense that we should have a society where everyone can keep their property and life. Humans have an innate sense of fairness, and so what these guys were saying was that it seems common sense that we would want to live in a society that is fair and just.

But surely you don't think fairness and justice exist in nature- outside of what we can define and enforce in modern civil societies?

View attachment 67566498 View attachment 67566496

I thought we were talking about humans.