What rights SHOULD we have?

[Cephus]

I explained the scientific process. Take scientific polls. Take them everywhere, with everyone. The results are always the same. The results are universal. This proves the agreements (rights) are socially natural. This is scientific evidence. It's a replicable experiment with empirical evidence.

It's self evident. Ask yourself those questions. Of course you answer 'yes' to all three of them. So will every person you ever meet.

You're talking opinion, not evidence. It clearly isn't self-evident, except to the delusional. Lots of people think gods are self-evident too. They're just wrong.

So you fail. No surprise.

 

[ecofarm]

You're talking opinion, not evidence.

Scientific polls generate empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is universal, thus the agreements are socially natural.

It clearly isn't self-evident, except to the delusional.

Do you answer 'no' to any of the questions? Does anyone you know?

Lots of people think gods are self-evident too. They're just wrong.

The empirical evidence is not universal.

So you fail. No surprise.

If you insist on being ignorant about the concept of socially natural rights, I can't stop you. The founders of America were not morons.

 

[Cephus]

Scientific polls generate empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is universal, thus the agreements are socially natural.

There is a reason that I specifically said objective evidence, which specifically excludes personal opinion. Tons of kids believe in Santa Claus, that doesn't mean Santa Claus is real.

Do you answer 'no' to any of the questions? Does anyone you know?

Your questions didn't reference rights at all. You are aware of that, correct?

 

[ecofarm]

There is a reason that I specifically said objective evidence, which specifically excludes personal opinion.

Accepting an agreement is not personal opinion. It's a personal action. And it's universal, proving the agreements are socially natural.

Your questions didn't reference rights at all. You are aware of that, correct?

Of course they did. The rights to life, expression and self defense. You're being impossible. It's obviously very important for you to fail to understand the concept of socially natural rights.

 

[vegas giants]

It isn't a theory. Anything the law establishes and can revoke is not a 'right' but is privilege. You can call it a right but it isn't. It didn't exist before the government said it existed.

The Constitution was written with the intention that the government would have absolutely no power to establish, interfere with, or obstruct unalientable rights that the Founders, every single one of them, believed God or nature established for humankind.

That is why Americans enjoy the right to worship as they please, speak what they think, believe what they do, and live as they choose with impunity so long as they do not violate anybody else's right to do the same. However, the government and the courts have gradually been whittling away at those rights to our detriment. Every American citizen should be resisting that instead of promoting it.

You can play with semantics any way you like but the FACT is we create rights by law and by SCOTUS decision. We call them rights, they act as rights and they are rights.

 

[vegas giants]

Grotesque ignorance.

Socially natural rights are inalienable. They don't "go away", they are merely violated. Did you miss The Enlightenment?

Again this is semantics. In the US we create rights by law and by SCOTUS decision. You can claim they are not "really" rights if you want but they act as rights and are enforced as rights

 

[ecofarm]

Again this is semantics. In the US we create rights by law and by SCOTUS decision. You can claim they are not "really" rights if you want but they act as rights and are enforced as rights

The Constitution does not create rights, it enumerates them.

I can't believe how many people do not understand the concept of socially natural rights and how it frees us from the whim of kings and other unjust authority.

We, as people, recognize these universal agreements. And we don't need any government to tell us they exist. That's The Enlightenment.

 

[vegas giants]

The Constitution does not create rights, it enumerates them.

I can't believe how many people do not understand the concept of socially natural rights and how it frees us from the whim of kings and other unjust authority.

We, as people, recognize these universal agreements. And we don't need any government to tell us they exist. That's The Enlightenment.

Thank you for your opinion. In this country we created the right to an attorney free of charge if you can not afford it. One of many examples

 

[ecofarm]

Thank you for your opinion. In this country we created the right to an attorney free of charge if you can not afford it. One of many examples

That comes from the right to expression. We find nuance, and add things as we discover that nuance, but all rights are derived from the three universal agreements: life, expression and self defense.

Do you understand that the Constitution does not create rights, it enumerates them?

 

[What if...?]

Right to sleep/shelter.

Even if its a tent somewhere.

Housing is ridiculously expensive because sleeping is a privelege that must be paid for.

America shouldn't be the old "landed gentry renting existence to serfs" thing.

If people aren't forced into the market it will become more "natural". As of now, it is completely unnatural and simply a government enforced profit center.

 

[vegas giants]

That comes from the right to expression. We find nuance, and add things as we discover that nuance, but all rights are derived from the three universal agreements: life, expression and self defense.

Do you understand that the Constitution does not create rights, it enumerates them?

That is your opinion. I understand you have an opinion. Not facts....but opinions

 

[ecofarm]

That is your opinion. I understand you have an opinion. Not facts....but opinions

Socially natural rights are a scientific fact. Read post #119. Conduct the experiment yourself. You, like everyone else, will get universal results.

The Constitution enumerates socially natural rights, it does not create them. This is also a fact.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The Constitution does not create rights, it enumerates them.

I can't believe how many people do not understand the concept of socially natural rights and how it frees us from the whim of kings and other unjust authority.

We, as people, recognize these universal agreements. And we don't need any government to tell us they exist. That's The Enlightenment.

The federalists who believed a central government was necessary did not support inclusion of the Bill of Rights with the Constitution. They finally agreed to the first ten amendments in order to win support of the anti-federalists. The federalists were strong supporters of the concept of unalienable God given/natural rights and thought enumerating such rights would tend to be perceived as the ONLY unalienable rights protected by the Constitution. But the anti-federalists who first opposed a central government but eventually agreed to a strictly limited one wanted the Bill of Rights to underline what the central government would not be allowed to do or interfere with. They didn't agree that this would create a perception that the list was the only unalienable rights the government could not touch.

Our friends Cephus and vegas giants seem to have no understanding of the concept of unalienable/natural rights that the entire Constitution was intended to recognize and defend. A concept that certainly did not see such rights as created by government but that they already existed.

 

[vegas giants]

Socially natural rights are a scientific fact. Read post #119. Conduct the experiment yourself. You, like everyone else, will get universal results.

The Constitution enumerates socially natural rights, it does not create them. This is also a fact.

No sir that is a philosophical opinion. One could easily argue that the right to an attorney has noting to do with the right to expression. That would be a philosophical and semantics argument. But it is a right....and that is a fact

 

[vegas giants]

The federalists who believed a central government was necessary did not support inclusion of the Bill of Rights with the Constitution. They finally agreed to the first ten amendments in order to win support of the anti-federalists. The federalists were strong supporters of the concept of unalienable God given/natural rights and thought enumerating such rights would tend to be perceived as the ONLY unalienable rights protected by the Constitution. But the anti-federalists who first opposed a central government but eventually agreed to a strictly limited one wanted the Bill of Rights to underline what the central government would not be allowed to do or interfere with and didn't see that this would create a perception that the list was the only unalienable rights the government could not touch.

Our friends Cephus and vegas giants seem to have no understanding of the concept of unalienable/natural rights that the entire Constitution was intended to recognize and defend. A concept that certainly did not see such rights as created by government but that they already existed.

You are entitled to your own opinions....not your own facts

 

[ecofarm]

The federalists who believed a central government was necessary did not support inclusion of the Bill of Rights with the Constitution. They finally agreed to the first ten amendments in order to win support of the anti-federalists. The federalists were strong supporters of the concept of unalienable God given/natural rights and thought enumerating such rights would tend to be perceived as the ONLY unalienable rights protected by the Constitution. But the anti-federalists who first opposed a central government but eventually agreed to a strictly limited one wanted the Bill of Rights to underline what the central government would not be allowed to do or interfere with and didn't see that this would create a perception that the list was the only unalienable rights the government could not touch.

Our friends Cephus and vegas giants seem to have no understanding of the concept of unalienable/natural rights that the entire Constitution was intended to recognize and defend. A concept that certainly did not see such rights as created by government but that they already existed.

How does The Enlightenment skip some people? Flabbergasting.

 

[vegas giants]

How does The Enlightenment skip some people? Flabbergasting.

You are referring to the philosophy of the enlightment not the science

 

[Cephus]

Socially natural rights are a scientific fact. Read post #119. Conduct the experiment yourself. You, like everyone else, will get universal results.

The Constitution enumerates socially natural rights, it does not create them. This is also a fact.

You clearly don't know what science is.

 

[ecofarm]

No sir that is a philosophical opinion.

No, it is a scientific fact. One can prove the existence of socially natural rights through scientific experimentation.

One could easily argue that the right to an attorney has noting to do with the right to expression.

One would be an idiot.

 

[ecofarm]

You clearly don't know what science is.

My MSc and PhD(c) say I do.

You're pathetically oblivious to the basic concept of The Enlightenment.

 

[vegas giants]

No, it is a scientific fact. One can prove the existence of socially natural rights through scientific experimentation.



One would be an idiot.

No you can not and your frustration reveals your lack of argument

 

[Cephus]

My MSc and PhD(c) say I do.

You're pathetically oblivious to the basic concept of The Enlightenment.

No, you're pathetically oblivious to the difference between philosophy and science.

 

[ecofarm]

No you can not and your frustration reveals your lack of argument

Read post #119 again. Conduct the experiment yourself. Report the results.

 

[AlbqOwl]

You are entitled to your own opinions....not your own facts

The only one here expressing opinions are you. I have been stating facts.

 

[vegas giants]

Ask any group of equal before the law (and sane) people:

Do you agree to observe the right to life in order to preserve it for yourself?
Do you agree to observe the right to expression in order to preserve it for yourself?
Do you agree to observe the right to self defense in order to preserve it for yourself?

Everyone answers yes, throughout time and place. The agreements are universal. Thus, they are socially natural. One might ask, "what's the motivation behind these universal agreements" and the answer is: to preserve our species.

A socially natural right is a product of society and is not dependent upon any authority. It exists as a part of mankind. It is inalienable. Inalienable means cannot be separated from mankind. Inalienable does not mean inviolable.

Just ask yourself those questions: it's self evident.

Natural. Inalienable. Self evident.


I'm amazed that people in today's day and age are oblivious to the revelations of The Enlightenment that lead to the foundation of the modern Western world (beginning with revolutions in America and France). This stuff should be taught in elementary school.

In science you would first need to define your terms exactly. This would lead to the philosophical and sematic debates I was referring to. In science we can measure things exactly....not so in philosophy.

Your experiment is a philosophical one and does not meet the standard of scientific method