The ivory tower intellectual vs the man on the street

[Drake Tungsten]

Natural rights aren't a modern Libertarian concept. They've been around for a long time and are one of the cornerstones of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. If you don't believe in natural rights, then most of our system of government would be invalid.

Not that I agree with David Floyd...

[monkspider]

Oh, I agree that there are natural rights, such as freedom of speech and so forth, but property natural rights seem, deciededly, unnatural.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why is freedom of speech natural while property rights aren't? Both have been embedded in the American system since its beginnings...

The problem with natural rights is that they are supposedly endowed by God (or nature or whatever). It's hard to get rid of a right that is divinely given...

[Dis]

so there should be no property? If ther is property, it only seems natural that there are rights to go with that property.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

My issue with the concept of natural rights is that they're too inflexible. Yes, people should have property rights - but absolute property rights would make it would be impossible for government - or society - to function. Essentially it would be every man for himself.

'Constitution' is a short form of saying 'we believe that we are more wise now than any of our successors ever could be, and so, we are creating a series of rules that shall live forever regardless of how the world changes in future'

Commandments have the same problem

IMO, of course.

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I could go on and on about the immorality of such a system, but there's no need to. Deep down, you know slavery is wrong.

Why is voluntary service slavery?

[Ned]

Also, if the right to vote were based on service to America, anyone and everyone in the world could qualify simply by signing up.

[Capt Dizle]

Calulate the median income, factor in other assets and allow only the poorest 50% of Americans to vote. That would be swell.

While we are it, corporate boards should be elected by a weighted vote of the stockholders with the least stock and the least paid employees.

[Ned]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Calulate the median income, factor in other assets and allow only the poorest 50% of Americans to vote. That would be swell.

While we are it, corporate boards should be elected by a weighted vote of the stockholders with the least stock and the least paid employees.

Surely you jest? This formula would last all of one second before the strong would f%%k the weak.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why is freedom of speech natural while property rights aren't? Both have been embedded in the American system since its beginnings...

The problem with natural rights is that they are supposedly endowed by God (or nature or whatever). It's hard to get rid of a right that is divinely given...

There are no natural rights. Government is either tyranny or a contract.

[monkspider]

My litmus test for whether a right can be considered truly "natural" or not consists of whether or not we would have this right if we just existed in the wild, apart from civilization. Obviously we would have the right to speak freely, however property rights, however, would be nonexistant.

This may seem like a simplistic way of looking at things, but I have always found it to be the best way of determining which rights truly are the result of our divine creator, and which are entirely man-made.

[monolith94]

"A little service would do you some good. Maybe you would learn to think about people besides yourself..."
I don't want to kill other people- that's why I don't want to join the army. I would hardly call this selfish…

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have to agree with Ned (I have to stop saying that ) in that there are no natural rights. Any rights you have come from government.

My litmus test for whether a right can be considered truly "natural" or not consists of whether or not we would have this right if we just existed in the wild, apart from civilization. Obviously we would have the right to speak freely, however property rights, however, would be nonexistant.

The old 'State of Nature'? Hobbes believed that the state of nature was choas. Locke believed that in the state of nature people band together for protection. Hobbes believed the only natural right was life. Locke believed it was life, liberty, and property.

Freedom of Speech in the wild lasts as long as the strongest person says you don't have that right. And if you attempt to exercise it, the strong bonk you over the head.

One can easily say that in a state of nature, there is a right to property (you own all that you live on and protect) but no right to speech.

There are only power structures, and rights are made by the strong. This isn't inherantly bad, however.

[Ned]

On natural rights: An athlete meets a wimp in the wild. Why should the wimp have any rights at all. His lot is slavery.

Such was all government until the development of concepts of voting which required self-restraint by the strong. The first ruler to lay down power for a democracy was Theseus, I believe, of Athens in 1300 BC. That was remarkable.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't want to kill other people- that's why I don't want to join the army. I would hardly call this selfish…

Then serve in the Peace Corps. I wasn't talking about you anyway, I was talking about David Floyd.