The Founding Founders Did Not Believe in Natural Rights....

[johnny45]

A natural right denied is not nonexistent, rather it is wrongly taken from me and gives me cause for complaint and if the infringement is sufficient for war.

According to the Declaration of Independence natural rights are endowed upon men by their Creator. That is to say, they are granted by an Authority superior in every way to any and all human government and cannot be revoked by their edict. The point of natural rights is not to in themselves prevent governments from infringing upon them, but rather to give just cause and rationale for fighting against those who otherwise ought to be reasonably obeyed.

Exactly.

If hope more will come to recognize the point.

(Tried to rep you, but I got a no can do message)

 

[Liberty1911]

See post above expanded while you were posting.

The pink slip is a suppression and infringement of the underlying natural right which exists. We should be working on eliminating the permission slip as does Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and others.

The suppression of the right does not mean it does not exist. It exists and must be defended against suppresson.

Where does it come from? We were endowed by our creator with these rights.

Reading Locke is a good place to start.

Ah, but there lies the rub. Most people nowadays who believe in natural rights don't acknowledge they come from our Creator. Otherwise, they'd have to give up homosexual "marriage".

I personally believe we do have natural rights endowed by our Creator, but that still begs the question - Where is the list of endowed rights? The Bible? If not, then who gets to make the list?

And there lies the second rub. Unless we can agree on a standard external to ourselves, then everyone gets to decide for themselves what they think constitutes a "natural right".

 

[Kutnupe14]

Now. THIS IS JUICY, as its a blatant, unadulterated lie. The Militia Act of 1792 is online and can be read by anyone. The only power given is for the brigade inspector to attend the regimental meeting of those in actual militia service and report back how many arms and what type were brought by the men. Kutnupe, either you intended this lie or you're taking your Democratic Underground marching orders uncritically and swallowing them whole. Where exactly did you cut and paste this tripe from?

Lol, ok... sounds a lot like firearm registration, to me. If you wish to call something a lie, feel free to disprove it.

 

[johnny45]

Ah, but there lies the rub. Most people nowadays who believe in natural rights don't acknowledge they come from our Creator. Otherwise, they'd have to give up homosexual "marriage".

I personally believe we do have natural rights endowed by our Creator, but that still begs the question - Where is the list of endowed rights? The Bible? If not, then who gets to make the list?

And there lies the second rub. Unless we can agree on a standard external to ourselves, then everyone gets to decide for themselves what they think constitutes a "natural right".

Yet another reason that the government must be severely limited.

Marriage is yet another area where the government has trespassed on grounds beyound its border; and today folks want them to trespass further. I would rather the government be returned to its pen.

 

[Glocker 400]

A natural right denied is not nonexistent, rather it is wrongly taken from me and gives me cause for complaint and if the infringement is sufficient for war.

According to the Declaration of Independence natural rights are endowed upon men by their Creator. That is to say, they are granted by an Authority superior in every way to any and all human government and cannot be revoked by their edict. The point of natural rights is not to in themselves prevent governments from infringing upon them, but rather to give just cause and rationale for fighting against those who otherwise ought to be reasonably obeyed.

I understand your distinction between a preexisting right that is wrongfully denied versus a right that one does not realistically have, but the effect is nevertheless the same. While I agree that the right to self defense is a natural one, it seems self evident to me that a natural right is not something that has to be bestowed upon me by some higher authority. Defense of self is instinctual. No further justification is needed in fighting those who would attempt to prevent that right from being exercised. The only decision to make is, "How much infringement is too much?" Each man has his own line in the sand. When several men agree on where that line is, I suppose things could get ugly.

I tend to think on the realistic side of things, rather than the abstract. I think I own my house, but realistically speaking, I would quickly find out otherwise if I stop paying property taxes.

 

[Glocker 400]

Ah, but there lies the rub. Most people nowadays who believe in natural rights don't acknowledge they come from our Creator. Otherwise, they'd have to give up homosexual "marriage".

I personally believe we do have natural rights endowed by our Creator, but that still begs the question - Where is the list of endowed rights? The Bible? If not, then who gets to make the list?

And there lies the second rub. Unless we can agree on a standard external to ourselves, then everyone gets to decide for themselves what they think constitutes a "natural right".

I suppose I fit your definition. One needs only to look to the lowest of species of life to see that self defense is a natural instinct of all living things. In our particular species, we codify this as a right.
If you rely on 3 people agreeing on something in order to officially recognize it, get a Baptist, a Muslim and a Jew in a room together and see how that works out.

 

[Liberty1911]

Yet another reason that the government must be severely limited.

Marriage is yet another area where the government has trespassed on grounds beyound its border; and today folks want them to trespass further. I would rather the government be returned to its pen.

I agree on limiting government.

My point though is, if someone think our natural rights come from the God of the Bible, then "homosexual marriage" isn't one of them, whether the government interferes or not.

So again, where does our list of natural rights come from? It has to be something external from ourselves, otherwise it's a meaningless concept.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ah, but there lies the rub. Most people nowadays who believe in natural rights don't acknowledge they come from our Creator. Otherwise, they'd have to give up homosexual "marriage".

I personally believe we do have natural rights endowed by our Creator, but that still begs the question - Where is the list of endowed rights? The Bible? If not, then who gets to make the list?

And there lies the second rub. Unless we can agree on a standard external to ourselves, then everyone gets to decide for themselves what they think constitutes a "natural right".

What?
Interesting logic.

 

[RockofStrength]

I understand your distinction between a preexisting right that is wrongfully denied versus a right that one does not realistically have, but the effect is nevertheless the same. While I agree that the right to self defense is a natural one, it seems self evident to me that a natural right is not something that has to be bestowed upon me by some higher authority. Defense of self is instinctual. No further justification is needed in fighting those who would attempt to prevent that right from being exercised. The only decision to make is, "How much infringement is too much?" Each man has his own line in the sand. When several men agree on where that line is, I suppose things could get ugly.

I tend to think on the realistic side of things, rather than the abstract. I think I own my house, but realistically speaking, I would quickly find out otherwise if I stop paying property taxes.

The whole concept of a natural right is grounded in justifying rebellion to governmental forces and creating limits on those forces to preempt corruption, tyranny etc. If that is unimportant then it is so much paper and drivel. The Founders wanted and needed a reason beyond "screw this, I don't like what they're doing to me and I'm gonna go kill some people for it!" before they drug thousands of their countrymen through a bloody war. Plenty of other reactions are instinctual, depending on the person, including pride, greed, and other negative emotions that one would not want leading a nation into war.

The abstract is important on the mental and moral side of things, personally, and ethically on the larger national scale. It is not intended that one ignores the reality, but that the abstract gives a plan for what we try to mold reality to be.

 

[johnny45]

I agree on limiting government.

My point though is, if someone think our natural rights come from the God of the Bible, then "homosexual marriage" isn't one of them, whether the government interferes or not.

So again, where does our list of natural rights come from? It has to be something external from ourselves, otherwise it's a meaningless concept.

Agreed.

Is marriage a natural right? I have not thought about it much but it is a good question. Anything I have gathered, including from the Bible, would seem to indicate marriage is more about law than a natural right.

Man's natural rights are endowed by his creator.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Exactly right. It was the start of dismantling slavery. The fact that the OP does not know this pretty much supports my gut feeling that he is a statist troll.

That gut feeling is probably you needing to eat something.
Yes, the 3/5 Crompromise was the begining of the end of slavery, I never addressed that notion, but that meant "what" for the millions of slaves and freedmen who had to endure being counted as 3/5 of a person for the next 80 some-odd years?

The same persons that were "counted" for representation but lacked the abilty to be "represented"? And then when you consider that Freedmen, ie non-slaves, were also counted under the compromise, but were taxed, then we end up with the whole revolutionary cry of "No Taxation without Representation." Or at least non-equal representation.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Agreed.

Is marriage a natural right? I have not thought about it much but it is a good question. Anything I have gathered, including from the Bible, would seem to indicate marriage is more about law than a natural right.

Man's natural rights are endowed by his creator.

The problem with this, is that man has differring opinions on who or what their creator is.

 

[johnny45]

So let his opinion differ so long as it neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket..

 

[Liberty1911]

Agreed.

Is marriage a natural right? I have not thought about it much but it is a good question. Anything I have gathered, including from the Bible, would seem to indicate marriage is more about law than a natural right.

Man's natural rights are endowed by his creator.

I think it is. However, we're back to determining how we define marriage. If it's a natural right endowed by the God of the Bible, then He has a specific definition about what that means, and we don't have a "natural right" to discard the definition from the Person who gave us the right.

This conversation could quickly go in circles but my main point for those advocating natural rights is - where do we get our definition (or list if you will) of those rights?

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

Excluding slaves from Natural Rights was a bi-partisan arrangement the FFs felt was necessary due to the urgency of the time! The Union had to be formed and bound and compromises were made......

 

[Bunnykid68]

Ah, but there lies the rub. Most people nowadays who believe in natural rights don't acknowledge they come from our Creator. Otherwise, they'd have to give up homosexual "marriage".

I personally believe we do have natural rights endowed by our Creator, but that still begs the question - Where is the list of endowed rights? The Bible? If not, then who gets to make the list?

And there lies the second rub. Unless we can agree on a standard external to ourselves, then everyone gets to decide for themselves what they think constitutes a "natural right".

I can clear that up right now. I have the right to do anything I want so long as it does not restrict someone else from enjoying their same rights.

 

[Glocker 400]

I can clear that up right now. I have the right to do anything I want so long as it does not restrict someone else from enjoying their same rights.

Seems like a good place to start, and one that does not require agreement on things that cannot possibly be known.

 

[Liberty1911]

I can clear that up right now. I have the right to do anything I want so long as it does not restrict someone else from enjoying their same rights.

That definition is not consistent with our rights coming from the God of the Bible.

 

[Glocker 400]

The whole concept of a natural right is grounded in justifying rebellion to governmental forces and creating limits on those forces to preempt corruption, tyranny etc. If that is unimportant then it is so much paper and drivel. The Founders wanted and needed a reason beyond "screw this, I don't like what they're doing to me and I'm gonna go kill some people for it!" before they drug thousands of their countrymen through a bloody war. Plenty of other reactions are instinctual, depending on the person, including pride, greed, and other negative emotions that one would not want leading a nation into war.

The abstract is important on the mental and moral side of things, personally, and ethically on the larger national scale. It is not intended that one ignores the reality, but that the abstract gives a plan for what we try to mold reality to be.

Thank you for admitting that you are trying to mold a reality. My reality doesn't need molding, it is firmly rooted in what I observe and know about the world around me. Nor do I need it to be molded by others without my consent.

Each person has their own idea about whether a war is justified or not. When enough people agree, we go to war. It ALWAYS boils down to "I don't like what they are doing, and I feel that I need to kill them because of it." If the paper and drivel makes you feel better, than who am I to deny you that? Man always goes to war for self interests. I would feel completely justified in taking up arms against those who would completely deny my right to defend myself. The right is self evident. I need no more poetry or fluff to justify it.

 

[Glocker 400]

That definition is not consistent with our rights coming from the God of the Bible.

That's because they don't. Many of the founding fathers were Deists.