• 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!

The Constitution grants you nothing

If you claim fundamental rights cannot be divined without God, the founder's would agree with you.

I'm starting to question if you can read. I'm arguing that there are no such things as inherent rights. Whatever we decide is "fundamental" is irrelevant.

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.

Do you have ANYTHING other than "Godidit" variants?

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.

How is that even related to this argument?
 
No individual can show that they have any right to impose their will on any other individual.

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.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much. What the government gives, they can take away. Doesn't change the argument that there are no such things as inherent rights?

I thought I said we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
You're operating under the asinine notion that rights inherently exist in the natural state of man. Hence why your argument falls apart.

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?!?
 
Rights are created by people, its the social contract. In nature, there are no rights, only humans and lions eating lambs. The constitution doesn't just say what rights government give us, but it says what we as a society agree are the acceptable rights we have. And rights are definitely established by people, if they were natural, freedom of speech meant we could say whatever we wanted but in the US physical threats are not allowed. In the UK hate speech is not allowed, so rights depend on the society that establishes them.

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.
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 rights were natural, why were they 'discovered' or developed recently in the 17th or 18th centuries?

This is a good question. A number of factors conspired to shroud man's natural rights. First among them must be considered the ability to read and the availability of books. Before the 18th century, those who could read ruled those who couldn't. Once a significant number of people could read and the printing press made books available, individual rights spread. People say the enlightenment was when science replaced religion, but it is more correct to say, knowledge was interpreted for the many, not the few. Because before the 18th century, the Bible was used a cudgel against individual rights, but after, as the general public was able to read for themselves, it became clear God granted individual rights, not rights to a king. To this day, many view science and the Bible as diametrically opposed, when nothing could be further from the truth.

While Opteron follows the public school script of social contract and rights granted by man through a piece of paper (the constitution), the founders reject these notions. First of all, a contract, social or otherwise, requires willing participation. Terms freely agreed upon.

Elements of a contract:
. A party must have capacity to contract.That means parties in a contract must justify their majority in age to understand terms of the contract and be mentally able.
. The purpose of the contract must be lawful
. The form of the contract must be legal
. The parties must intend to create a legal relationship
. The parties must consent

Arguably none of these conditions are met, when a child enters the world or even when a child reaches the age of majority. However, failing any one of the elements, negates any purported "contract." The notion of a "social contract" is a fallacy.

Locke, Jefferson and Bastiat argued against the notion of a social contract, rather that government arose from need to maximize natural rights of citizens, to adjudicate boundaries where the equal rights of men intersected, protecting them from force and fraud. The founder's primary goal was to institute a self-limiting government with limited and enumerated power, so that government would not set one foot into the realm of the rights of free men. Rights granted by God, not by a piece of paper. Rights that can't be rightly taken away by man or government.
 
Last edited:
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.

And "God" is a human construct too....
 
Humans are God's construct, my friend.
 
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?!?

If I believe that the cause of all life was magical space pandas that live in the sun in Jello space ships.....does it make it true?

What we wish to believe does not equate to what exists.

Read the thread. Your argument is little more than the belief that Hitler would not invade because he put his signature in ink on paper.
 
OC argues the only rights are those that can be enforced with the business end of a gun.

Not necessarily a gun, but some method of force.

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.

Yawn, your incessant reliance on a faith based argument suggests you do not have anything concrete. If you believe what you claim to be true, you should be able to point to ANY period in time where humans exists and find evidence of inherent, inalienable rights. You have repetitively failed to do this.

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.

Why must there be God for equality or justice? Your entire argument is nothing but the fallacy of begging the question. Also I never said God didn't exist. You keep arguing faith based claims as if they were proof that inherent rights exist. You NEVER point to any instance of actual inherent rights. Essentially you have nothing but "Goddidit."

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.

Yes it is. Your argument is nothing but Goddidit. Hence why you have repetitively ran away from providing actual evidence in any point in human history.
 
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.
 
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.

Okay ink on paper. Also I never argued that without God, there are no individual rights, no free will and no equality. You argued that. I challenged that position and you're running from defending it as you've run from all defense of your claims,.

All you can cite is people believed something in the past, therefore it's true. By that idiotic reasoning, the world is flat and we'd die if we sail to the end. Also the Sun revolves around the Earth.

You cannot actually cite any evidence of inherent, inalienable rights because there isn't any. I already asked to you to provide something from 1400-1500 AD and you cowardly ran from that challenge. If humans have inherent rights, you should be able to provide evidence of them in any time period humans existed in.

You cannot.

Also, you're running away from providing a reason why we need God for justice or equality.

Your entire debate arsenal seems to consist of nothing but "I say so."

Let me ask you this question, if you think that rights are inherent, then we should ban guns because no one needs force to protect their rights because they're inherent and inalienable?
 
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?
 
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?
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.

Your post 82 is wrong, the social contract is not the same as any other modern day contract, you don't sign it and consent to it by each individual person. It is consented to by the majority of citizens and binding upon the rest. There is tacit consent that if you don't like the contract, you can move out of the country in which you reside.
Social contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom