- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
If you claim fundamental rights cannot be divined without God, the founder's would agree with you.
Don't you think the founder's wanted a source document without referring and relying on God? It was a major point of debate. In the end, they determined what most of the rest of us found - God is required to grant man his rights. Without God, man is nothing.
Whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant. If you believe there's no IRS, try not paying taxes? If you stand in the road, but believe there's no truck bearing down on you, it won't prevent disaster. Your opinion doesn't matter to the truck. Belief will no longer be an issue on judgement day. Enforcement will be settled that day, as well.
You appear to be without God? Good luck with that.
Right granted by government are no more certain than privileges granted by government.
No individual can show that they have any right to impose their will on any other individual.
Pretty much. What the government gives, they can take away. Doesn't change the argument that there are no such things as inherent rights?
You're operating under the asinine notion that rights inherently exist in the natural state of man. Hence why your argument falls apart.
Exactly. If rights were natural, why were they 'discovered' or developed recently in the 17th or 18th centuries? What happened to freedom of speech or freedom of assembly in the middle ages or dark ages?If you actually believe that humans have inherent, inalienable rights, find me evidence in the period from 1400 to 1500 AD. Shouldn't be hard if you actually think your belief is so obviously true.
If rights were natural, why were they 'discovered' or developed recently in the 17th or 18th centuries?
OC argues the only rights are those that can be enforced with the business end of a gun. Your assertions of equal rights or that one can't impose their will on another, fail OC's test. Because clearly, men with guns can and do impose their will on others. You may make a moral case that everyone is created equal, but why? What backs that assertion? I argue and the founder's argue, it's only through God's grant of free-will. God is the source of equal rights under the law. God put Adam in the garden where he unfortunately learned good from evil. God puts it in every man's heart to know right from wrong. When you claim, "all people have equal rights," that notion derives from God. Otherwise, it's simply in your own mind and nowhere else.
OC rejects God as the source by denial. Denial of God's existence. Few dare to make such claims, but many are willing to deny God's rightful place in America's founding? Can't have it both ways? Either God created all men equal, with individual free will or He didn't. The founder's knew. There's simply no equal justice under the law without God granting it. No moral basis for equality, without God.
This is not a bible-thumping argument. The founder's tried to derive rights from first principles and their first attempts were agnostic. They tried everything to keep religion out of it. But, it's simply not possible. Like it or not, the cornerstone is God.
Asinine notion?!? Our nation is built upon the following statement that changed the world forever,"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This is the most basic of all American beliefs. Asinine notion?!?
OC argues the only rights are those that can be enforced with the business end of a gun.
Your assertions of equal rights or that one can't impose their will on another, fail OC's test. Because clearly, men with guns can and do impose their will on others. You may make a moral case that everyone is created equal, but why? What backs that assertion? I argue and the founder's argue, it's only through God's grant of free-will. God is the source of equal rights under the law. God put Adam in the garden where he unfortunately learned good from evil. God puts it in every man's heart to know right from wrong. When you claim, "all people have equal rights," that notion derives from God. Otherwise, it's simply in your own mind and nowhere else.
OC rejects God as the source by denial. Denial of God's existence. Few dare to make such claims, but many are willing to deny God's rightful place in America's founding? Can't have it both ways? Either God created all men equal, with individual free will or He didn't. The founder's knew. There's simply no equal justice under the law without God granting it. No moral basis for equality, without God.
This is not a bible-thumping argument. The founder's tried to derive rights from first principles and their first attempts were agnostic. They tried everything to keep religion out of it. But, it's simply not possible. Like it or not, the cornerstone is God.
you have repetitively ran away from providing actual evidence in any point in human history.
Far from it. I agree with you, that without God, there are no individual rights, no free will and no equality. I have Jefferson, Madison and every single signer of the Declaration and Constitution on my side. You, on the other hand, blow hot air. Prove nothing. Stand for nothing but anarchy. Good luck with that.
You are just assuming that rights have to flow from God because you have no other explanation for them, or don't understand them. In your example, when the two men come together, its logic and common sense that if one does not want to be punched, they should not punch one another. Therefore, they create an agreement between each other that neither should punch each other, or in other words they form a social contract. This contract is created by the majority of persons in a society and is binding on the rest of the members by the enforcement of laws. Rights are created because of man's intelligence, common sense, and sense of fairness allow us to create rules in which we will all be better off to live by.You confuse morality and criminality. Rights with force. Just because you have a right to your car, doesn't mean somebody can't steal it. It does mean you have a moral right to legal recourse.
I made the two-wolf case, but you rejected it. Two persons hundreds of miles apart, each raised by wolves, never seeing another human. Each completely free and unrestricted in their actions. On the day they meet, their actions become slightly bounded by the other's presence. One is free to swing his fist, but that right is now restricted by the other man's nose. You argue one man may rightly kill the other and that force makes right. I argue the only restriction on either's freedom is the equal rights of the other. If you deny the equal rights of these two men, the only recourse is to bring God into the equation.
Had two wolves met, who would blame either wolf for killing the other? So, what is the difference with man meeting man? Only God separates the rules of man from the rules of animals.
_________
Not sure what your obsession is with the fifteenth century? Why don't you just say what you want to say about that time period?
when the two men come together, its logic and common sense that if one does not want to be punched, they should not punch one another. Therefore, they create an agreement between each other that neither should punch each other, or in other words they form a social contract.
Wrong, have you ever heard of a pack of wolves working together to bring down a larger animal? There is a social contract, it was discovered long ago, just because you say it doesn't exist doesn't make it so. Countless philosophers have worked on the concept of the social contract yet it doesn't exist because you say so.If the sense is so common, why don't the same rules apply to wolves? If the wolves choose to avoid each other, have they formed a "social contract?" Silliness. There is no such thing as a social contract, as I've previously shown (in post 82).
In addition, your arguments fail OC's test of, might-makes-right. He argues that if one man kills the other, then it is righteous by evidence that it happened. One imposed his will on the other and there's nothing the other can do about it, because he's dead. OC's rules are the rules of the wolf. He argues these "wolf's rules" are the natural law and that righteousness and "rights" exist only in our minds.
The founder's (and I) argue that rights come from God. That God separated man from animal and gave him free will. That regardless OC's denials, there is a reckoning day.
Tacit consent
The theory of an implicit social contract holds that by remaining in the territory controlled by some society, which usually has a government, people give consent to join that society and be governed by its government, if any. This consent is what gives legitimacy to such government.
However, other writers have argued that consent to join the society is not necessarily consent to its government. For that, the government must be according to a constitution of government that is consistent with the superior unwritten constitutions of nature and society.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?