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

[Kutnupe14]

Even a non-voter is affected by the government, just as representatives today are distributed by total population, not registered voters. Similarly, the English Parliament was held to represent the entire empire although only those in Britain could vote. You could properly argue that this was one of the critical issues leading up to the revolution (taxation without representation) but then again, slaves didn't pay taxes. It was definitely not the solution that would be accepted today, but was better than it could have been.

This, exactly.

 

[ViperJock]

The OP ignores completely the collected works of Thomas Paine, most notably The Rights of Man.

Thomas Paine was just a man. So was John Locke. Who are they to know God's will? Who are they to know more than another man about "natural rights?" Certainly they illiterate their argument in a compelling form (and I happen to agree with them) but that doesn't make them correct. The ideas of men cannot be used as proof in a philosophical argument.

Tomfoolery ignores the collected work of Marx? You see my point?

I propose that all this vitriol toward the OP is the result of not understanding what his post was about in the first place. The OP didn't say we don't have natural rights, he stated that the way we interpret the intentions of the FF may not be entirely correct.

I fail to understand how so many folks claim to understand Locke and Paine, but can't tease out the point of this OP.

 

[Liberty1911]

And it takes a lot of gall to believe that you have just happened to have selected THE correct "creator god," out of the hundreds that have been worshipped over the centuries. The origin of the universe is not a simple equation, as much as you would like it to be. I do not claim to know the origin of everything around us (unlike you), but I do believe that miniscule cell changes in matter over millions of years resulting in the world as we know it today makes more sense than fantastic magic performed by a deity who somehow created himself out of nothing before creating everything else.

You don't have to get upset just because your faith was challenged.

Are you even listening to yourself. Fantastic magic? There's no more fantastic magic, in fact it crosses the boundary of impossible, than to believe nobody times nothing equals everything. As I said it takes great faith to believe that. If you're uncomfortable with your faith, read some science books to strengthen it instead of getting angry at others.

If people like you had your way throughout history, we'd still be dying from polio and scurvy, burning "witches," barking at the moon instead of landing on it and performing exorcisms on people with mental illness. Thankfully, as the base of human experience and knowledge continues to increase exponentially, man will have less and less need for archaic traditions and rituals.

Let's test the effects of modern science and see how far people like you have come.

Instead of dying from polio and scurvy, people die from AIDS because we don't want to offend anyone by pointing out the cause. Thousands of people die from malaria each year because environmentalists managed to get DDT banned. people like you, with your political correctness and earth worship have killed far more people than medieval superstitions.

Modern man still believes in witches. He calls them aliens and spends billions of dollars hunting them, produces TV shows about them, and encourages people to share their abduction experiences. If he could find one, instead of burning him at the stake, he'd strap him to an autopsy table and eviscerate him. People like you are the ones promoting superstition, not Christians.

As to barking at the moon, why there again, modern science does exactly that. Because they have pre determined that the solar system is 4.5 billion years old, they have to come up with some way to dismiss the young solar system evidence of comets. What to do? I know, we'll invent a magical Oort cloud that blankets the solar system and is filled with an unlimited supply of comets just waiting to be hurled toward the inner solar system. Magical clouds that can't be seen or observed, but yet somehow "prove" exactly what scientists believe. Sounds a lot like faith to me, but if you can believe in the impossibility of nobody times nothing equals everything, then you'll believe anything, and maybe even bark at magical clouds.

As far as Christian "morality," well, I don't want to receive an infraction. Suffice it to say that morals predate Christianity, and I would question the morals of anyone who needs the threat of eternal fire in order to not be a wanton criminal or general douche. "Don't be a prick" just about covers any moral situation you can think of. No magic required.

Rom 2:14-15

 

[Kutnupe14]

You don't have to get upset just because your faith was challenged.

Are you even listening to yourself. Fantastic magic? There's no more fantastic magic, in fact it crosses the boundary of impossible, than to believe nobody times nothing equals everything. As I said it takes great faith to believe that. If you're uncomfortable with your faith, read some science books to strengthen it instead of getting angry at others.




Let's test the effects of modern science and see how far people like you have come.

Instead of dying from polio and scurvy, people die from AIDS because we don't want to offend anyone by pointing out the cause. Thousands of people die from malaria each year because environmentalists managed to get DDT banned. people like you, with your political correctness and earth worship have killed far more people than medieval superstitions.

Modern man still believes in witches. He calls them aliens and spends billions of dollars hunting them, produces TV shows about them, and encourages people to share their abduction experiences. If he could find one, instead of burning him at the stake, he'd strap him to an autopsy table and eviscerate him. People like you are the ones promoting superstition, not Christians.

As to barking at the moon, why there again, modern science does exactly that. Because they have pre determined that the solar system is 4.5 billion years old, they have to come up with some way to dismiss the young solar system evidence of comets. What to do? I know, we'll invent a magical Oort cloud that blankets the solar system and is filled with an unlimited supply of comets just waiting to be hurled toward the inner solar system. Magical clouds that can't be seen or observed, but yet somehow "prove" exactly what scientists believe. Sounds a lot like faith to me, but if you can believe in the impossibility of nobody times nothing equals everything, then you'll believe anything, and maybe even bark at magical clouds.




Rom 2:14-15

What you, unfortunately, don't understand, and which weakens your stance considerably, is that science doesn't indicate that "nothing comes from nothing."

I would suggest a little more scientific reading before attributing states to science, which have not been made.

 

[Liberty1911]

What you, unfortunately, don't understand, and which weakens your stance considerably, is that science doesn't indicate that "nothing comes from nothing."

I would suggest a little more scientific reading before attributing states to science, which have not been made.

I didn't say "nothing comes from nothing".

Science says that everything comes from nothing.

I suggest a little more reading comprehension before commenting.

 

[4sarge]

Had to laugh...I opened up this thread and this is what I got:

He's Pushing my Ignore limits and will hold the dubious honor of being the only INGO'er on that List

ANYONE can compare the posts and see what I quoted is EXACTLY THE SAME as your post, except the quoting software on ALL posts italicizes all content. That still doesn't change your assertions or make them true or change the fact THAT YOU ARE PUSHING AN ANTI-GUN AGENDA USING ANTI-GUN SOURCES from a symposium designed specifically to be ANTI-GUN. I suppose this is how Democratic Underground trains moles like you, pass out anti-gun propaganda and when called on it, scream and cry and pretend you're misquoted. You are a low down turd coming on here and deliberately pushing this trash. Divert, divert, divert, right?

LMAO, Thanks for making my day

Caramel by the Sea Police because Krazy Kalifornia is too far a commute

Police Men sure have CHANGEd over the years and Not necessarily for the better

 

[Kutnupe14]

I didn't say "nothing comes from nothing".

Science says that everything comes from nothing.

I suggest a little more reading comprehension before commenting.

Fair enough, I quoted you wrong. However, science does NOT say "something come from nothing," and you be hard pressed to illustrate that is the believe held.
The Universe, as we understand it, started with the Big Bang. However science traditional makes no claims about what took place prior, other than a series of theories, which can never be substantiated.

 

[Liberty1911]

Fair enough, I quoted you wrong. However, science does NOT say "something come from nothing," and you be hard pressed to illustrate that is the believe held.
The Universe, as we understand it, started with the Big Bang. However science traditional makes no claims about what took place prior, other than a series of theories, which can never be substantiated.

Exactly. The "Big Bang". Everything came from nothing.

Which can never be substantiated - Exactly right again. It's all a matter of faith.

 

[Kutnupe14]

He's Pushing my Ignore limits and will hold the dubious honor of being the only INGO'er on that List



LMAO, Thanks for making my day

Caramel by the Sea Police because Krazy Kalifornia is too far a commute

Police Men sure have CHANGEd over the years and Not necessarily for the better

Feel free to place me on ignore. I'm sorry that you haven't been able to understand anything relevant to this thread, to make a post concerning. However, I guess I can appreciate that you've read something factual within this thread, and due to not want to accept it, you just HAD to say something, to make you feel better.
And, of course, that was my intent of this thread in the first place... To challenge people's thinking. If you read it, I've accomplished my goal. Truthful scholarship is important, whether one wishes to believe it or not.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Exactly. The "Big Bang". Everything came from nothing.

Which can never be substantiated - Exactly right again. It's all a matter of faith.

I will have to be careful here. But both science and "other beliefs," do not have to be mutually exclusive. In fact science has trended more towards "proving" these "other beliefs" rather than backing away from them (at least concerning major thoughts).
Science, in the opinion held by most members of the current community, does NOT state "something came from nothing." The more correct statement is that science states "something came from something, and there may or may not have always been something, but that first something, we do not know."

 

[CarmelHP]

Truthful scholarship is important, whether one wishes to believe it or not.

Which is why you make your claims based on "scholarship" specifically designed and paid for to exclude any contrary opinion or challenge? You are the most hypocritical poster ever to foul this place.

Cornell, whose article and agenda Kutnupe is pushing, is well known as the king of selective and misleading quotation: The Volokh Conspiracy - St. George Tucker versus Saul Cornell on the Second Amendment:

 

[T.Lex]

Do I think the Founding Fathers were tyrants? No, actually, I think they were best group of intellectuals on the planet at the time, who understood that hard decisions had to be made in forming our nation.

I agree with this. Above all, the FF were political pragmatists. They didn't like the government they'd had, the didn't like the first gov't they made (the Articles of Confederation), so they did the best they could to get a consensus on the new one (the Constitution).

Having said that, the consensus clearly was that there WERE natural rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." and all that. But, as we see from this thread, putting words and definitions on those natural rights is far harder than it seems.

So, they did the best they could with what they had, and made a country that was supposed to figure the rest out as it went along. The rest, to some degree, was an act of faith on their part that the succeeding generations would "get it right" - by whatever calculus that generation wanted to use.

BTW, speaking of faith, when you get down to particle physics and quantum mechanics, there is a whole lot of "nothing" in the universe that is "something" that we just can't measure very well. So, in a sense, "something" can come from "nothing."

Don't get me started on GUT and TOE. Modern science, when described abstractly, is very similar to religion.

Just MHO.

(Interesting thread you've started here, Kut - poke any other hornets' nests lately?)

 

[Kutnupe14]

I encourage any reader/poster to view any literature that would conflict with any argument or opinions I may have stated. However, I would also like for a reader to recognize what "facts," are; meaning things which physically occurred in action, compared to "opinions," which are not always followed through with action.

If anyone, besides the obvious, wishes to contest a fact, saying "that did not happen," point it out to me, I will research it further, and address it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I agree with this. Above all, the FF were political pragmatists. They didn't like the government they'd had, the didn't like the first gov't they made (the Articles of Confederation), so they did the best they could to get a consensus on the new one (the Constitution).

Having said that, the consensus clearly was that there WERE natural rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." and all that. But, as we see from this thread, putting words and definitions on those natural rights is far harder than it seems.

So, they did the best they could with what they had, and made a country that was supposed to figure the rest out as it went along. The rest, to some degree, was an act of faith on their part that the succeeding generations would "get it right" - by whatever calculus that generation wanted to use.

BTW, speaking of faith, when you get down to particle physics and quantum mechanics, there is a whole lot of "nothing" in the universe that is "something" that we just can't measure very well. So, in a sense, "something" can come from "nothing."

Don't get me started on GUT and TOE. Modern science, when described abstractly, is very similar to religion.

Just MHO.

(Interesting thread you've started here, Kut - poke any other hornets' nests lately?)

I'm blaming NYFelon. But you get the gist of it, certainly. The title was solely to get the attention of the more "passionate" members. I believe the FFs understood Natural Rights quite well. Even in regards to slavery, the writings of the founders reflected this. I simply think, that they knew what they could and couldn't "do" in order to found the nation.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm blaming NYFelon. But you get the gist of it, certainly. The title was solely to get the attention of the more "passionate" members. I believe the FFs understood Natural Rights quite well. Even in regards to slavery, the writings of the founders reflected this. I simply think, that they knew what they could and couldn't "do" in order to found the nation.

Yes, but then that leads to the next question, for our purposes - was this a thread designed to remind forum-goers that the FFs were political animals, flawed and brilliant in their own ways?

Or was there some benign ulterior motive - perhaps to suggest that modern politicians inherited basically the same political football? They have to balance out the same risks with current legislation?

I'm usually good for a decent historical-political dialogue, so it doesn't bother me either way.

ETA: Must spread some rep around before hitting you again (figuratively).

 

[level.eleven]

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.

Rights are a human construct. Created by men to order the society in which they live. They are not a feature of the natural world.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Rights are a human construct. Created by men to order the society in which they live. They are not a feature of the natural world.

So essentially you are saying the rights come from government?

 

[2A_Tom]

I can't believe this has not slipped off page one yet.

 

[Liberty1911]

Rights are a human construct. Created by men to order the society in which they live. They are not a feature of the natural world.

I see what you're saying, and I think we agree. Maybe. That's why I keep asking for someone to show me the list of rights they think they have.

Merely saying you have "natural rights" without a standard outside of yourself, is meaningless.

 

[lovemywoods]

In-Thread Warning


Many people have tried to have a civil discussion and I thank you. However due to the emotionally charged nature of the topics in this thread there have been many behaviors that are very close to the unacceptable line on INGO and a couple that were over the line (already dealt with).

This is the first and only warning being offered.

Further offenders will receive infractions and the thread will be closed.