Scalia is a piece of crap.

[Wezil]

What is self-evident to you may not be self-evident to everyone.

[Ben Kenobi]

What is self-evident to you may not be self-evident to everyone.

Ok, longer answer.

What can a man do if there were no society around him? What freedoms would be available to him.

Would he have the right to life? Yes, he would. There's just him. No one could take his life away from him because there's no one else there.

Does he have liberty? Is he free from imprisonment? Yes, he is. He is free to do pretty much whatever he wants.

Is he free to pursue his own happiness? To acquire property? Yes he is. Everything that he wishes can be his.

Is he equal to any other person that he sees? Yes, again. If we are to assume that one man is free, then we must also assume that two are equally free, that they have the same rights as anyone else.

Can he worship to the god of his choosing? Yes he can.

Can he speak out on his mind? Again yes, he can.

Can he choose to carry a spear for his own protection? Of course.

This is why these are all considered to be 'natural' rights, in that they exist even if there is no society around.

[Wezil]

So essentially you are saying natural rights are things that a single person living in solitude could do?

Two people can't be "equally free" in the same way as one person can if they wish to peacefully co-exist. They must establish rules. The right of one person to take a crap pretty much wherever they felt like it must come to an end when a second person complains that it is being done in their kitchen. This restricts the first person's freedom somewhat doesn't it?

Your natural rights can only exist within a state of one person living in solitude. I'm having trouble with the "rights" aspect of it.

[Kontiki]

Not to mention the fact that things like the right to not be murdered, raped, or stolen from is utterly meaningless if there's only one person. Introduce another person, and there's no natural right not to have any of those things happen to you either. The law of nature would pretty much say whoever is stronger can do what they want. And if you pick up your spear and kill that bigger guy after he's just raped you, well, that fine too because there's no consequences.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's a silly notion.

By that reasoning, how could we conclude that the Jim Crow regulations were wrong? The society in the South refused to bestow equal rights to black people.

If there are no natural rights, then what they did was perfectly legitimate.

No, it's quite a sensible notion.

How do we conclude Jim Crow is wrong, because the society has deemed it such. At the time, when society believed it to be right and moral, then yes, it was perfectly legitimate. Of course, people changed society's views on things and what rights were important and they were able to change things.

[q=Wezil]Your natural rights can only exist within a state of one person living in solitude. I'm having trouble with the "rights" aspect of it.[/q]

Agreed. Humans do not live in solitude, so the "rights" that arise out of that is nonsense. Humans have always lived in society and have decided what is ok within that society, so rights arise from agreements between people.

[Wezil]

Yeah, it appears more like anarchy than "rights".

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Agreed. Humans do not live in solitude, so the "rights" that arise out of that is nonsense. Humans have always lived in society and have decided what is ok within that society, so rights arise from agreements between people.

x-post

That was kind of where I was going with that. It seems "natural rights" can really only be defined by what society has deemed them to be. Unless of course you refer to a "higher power" and the written word somewhere.

[Aeson]

I can define "natural rights" for you

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, that's where the principle comes in that one person's rights end where another persons's rights begin.

Look at all of those examples. Add a second person. What can we infer from that.

1. They both have the right to worship at the same shrine, but they don't have the right to interfere with each other's worship. If they both want to use the same spot, then they have to come to some agreement over how that spot should be used.

2. They can't kill each other since they each have a right to life.

3. Their liberty is curtailed, in that they cannot infringe upon the liberty of the other person. They are permitted to do things so long as they don't infringe on each other's liberty.

[Ben Kenobi]

How do we conclude Jim Crow is wrong, because the society has deemed it such.

Northern society?

No, it was not because 'society' said it was wrong, but because it was deemed an affront to the natural principle that all men were created equal.

At the time, when society believed it to be right and moral, then yes, it was perfectly legitimate.

Thank you Imran. That goes in my sig.

[Ben Kenobi]

Agreed. Humans do not live in solitude, so the "rights" that arise out of that is nonsense. Humans have always lived in society and have decided what is ok within that society, so rights arise from agreements between people.

Natural rights are as much a part of personhood, as any other characteristic. They are endowed to people from the start, at no point is a person deprived of them so long as he exists.

They are individual, not assigned by a collective. They don't "arise" out of anarchy, they are possessed by every individual.

[Kontiki]

No, Ben, you're simply assuming "natural rights" in the absence of anything that could contravene those rights. You no more have a right to life if your the only person on the planet than you have a right to **** wherever you want, dump raw sewage into the ocean or sodomize goats. Further, there's nothing stopping some wild animal from killing you, so it's not like your life is that inviolable anyway. The whole concept of rights is meaningless if no one can infringe upon them. You then assume that just because another person is introduced into this system there's some reason they should give a damn whether or not you think they shouldn't kill you. The whole notion that everyone should be treated equally is one of society and agreed upon rules, or at least rules imposed by an authority with the ability to enforce them.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

What you're saying is an interesting contention, but one I don't see so much associated with gun ownership specifically.

In you country, just like in any other, you have plenty of regulations about what you can own and can't. I may be wrong as I don't know all subtleties of US laws, but I understand you can't own drugs, you can't own military-grade weapons, there was a time (and a constitutional amendment to that effect) where you couldn't own alcohol etc.

Now, a libertarian like Berz will tell me anybody should have the right to own those things. But I don't think it extends to all supporters of gun ownership

While what I am saying in that sentence may not address gun ownership specifically, it does cover it generally.

And yes...the US, in practice, does not have the freedoms that it preaches. Sadly, the government grows more restrictive and powerful with each passing year.

And you are right to imply that there is much of a libertarian viewpoint to what I say. Personal freedom is worth a lot to me. I was also taught about personal accountability when I was young as well. You need the later for the former to work. In the absence of that, people are forced to build a dependency on their government...and that is a downward spiral for society imho.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1. They both have the right to worship at the same shrine, but they don't have the right to interfere with each other's worship. If they both want to use the same spot, then they have to come to some agreement over how that spot should be used.

Or one can beat the other and take his spot.

2. They can't kill each other since they each have a right to life.

Or one can kill the other.

3. Their liberty is curtailed, in that they cannot infringe upon the liberty of the other person. They are permitted to do things so long as they don't infringe on each other's liberty.

Or one can take the other's liberty.

How do your "natural rights" prevent that? If there are only two people than the bully ends up winning since no society can enforce punishment over him.

Northern society?

No, it was not because 'society' said it was wrong, but because it was deemed an affront to the natural principle that all men were created equal.

American society as a whole. You do recall in 1965 there were all these states in the West too, right?

The "natural principle that all men were created equal" was an argument used to try to change society's view on things. Though I can't understand how a 'natural right' wasn't fully realized until very, very recently in Western history. How can it be a "natural right" when through most of history that situation never existed. Even the Bible talks about slaves being good to their masters, for heaven's sake!

Thank you Imran. That goes in my sig.

If you dig, you can probably find a similar quote from me re: slavery, etc. This is not very new, nor does putting it in your sig embarrass me in any way (so, sorry).

Natural rights are as much a part of personhood, as any other characteristic. They are endowed to people from the start, at no point is a person deprived of them so long as he exists.

They are individual, not assigned by a collective. They don't "arise" out of anarchy, they are possessed by every individual.

Humanity has never existed as simply an individual. And how are they possessed by every individual? Who gives them out? Why are they are a part of a person from birth when the person is born into a society and is never completely an individual unless he's stranded somewhere?

The only way this can happen is if you believe in god. And I don't (well, at least not this sort of god).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by PLATO
Why should the right to own anything be regulated by the government? People should be held accountable for their actions...not babysitted.

Nukes.

You lose.