Obviously it does need to be demonstrated or explained. Because simply saying something isn't an argument. "I hold unicorns to be self-evident." Obviously you'd reject that, right? So now we're back to the whole "how can rights be rights despite being alienable" thing.
But they've already upheld plenty of tyranny at the command of the US government. Not to mention all that torture nonsense. Remember when the military rounded up Japanese citizens into internment camps? This isn't really a what if, it's already happened. The state is a disease of the mind - it inspires people to do unspeakable things. Under the veil of authority men will kill children. They'll violate their oath to the constitution. Not all, but a sizable amount. Enough to seriously (*)(*)(*)(*) up the country.
OK, self evident to a majority of people. I personally have rights. I don't have a unicorn. Silly comparison. Do you have the same cognitive problem with electricity?
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=343777&p=1063619204 This what a disarmed nation looks like.....................
The thing is, most philosophers have long abandoned the idea of ANY proposition being self-evident. The only one that is still considered as such is this statement: "The whole of an object is greater than or equal to the sum of it's parts." Now, the argument that "most people" view rights as self-evident is wrong in a couple of ways. First, because most people are not Westerners, and of Westerners, there are plenty of people who disagree, although I am not surprised you are unaware of that. Second, that is a logical fallacy, specifically, argument from tradition. That most people think it does not make it so. I have already made the weakness clear. All rights have definite legal limits. All rights can be removed after due process. All rights are defined, interpreted and enforced by government. They are therefore not inalienable, not self-evident, not natural... Thus, not "natural" rights.
large elephants can never be the Militia of the United States. any questions? - - - Updated - - - Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller doesn't apply to well regulated, Militias, of Individuals of the People.
ran out of logic and reason, again? remember, only Trolls don't have a good argument and even Ogres may make fun of them for it.
A man who will spend the rest of his life in prison is not oppressed... His rights have been abolished as punishment for what was likely a brutal crime. Simply changing the word you use doesn't change the substance.
Punishment for violating other's natural rights (what our laws do). With rights come responsibilities.
By admitting that, you have destroyed your own argument. That is what you fail to grasp. If rights exist outside of government, any law that limits or removes them must be viewed as an infringement. They cannot be justifiably removed in any circumstance according to natural rights philosophy. The only way you can logically make that case is if you view rights as legal constructs, granted, interpreted, limited and enforced by government. Which has been my position this entire time. Natural rights philosophy is obvious nonsense. Legal rights philosophy is not. Natural rights philosophy is also extremely offensive, as it holds that rights came about due to nature or God, and not the sacrifices of courageous men and women.
Rights are inviolate; therefore, you cannot violate other's rights. Criminals have violated that tenet of rights so are punished by law.
You cannot violate others rights but you can if they disobey the law. You realize that doesn't make sense, correct? It puts the law above the right, while natural rights philosophy holds that any law which removes or infringes upon rights is invalid. The logic just isn't there. The contradictions are simply too massive to ignore.
You cannot violate other's rights but government and criminals do so we have laws limiting government from oppressing them and punish criminals for violating them. That fact that they are oppressed or violated pretty much proves they exist as self evident.
What exactly are you trying to say? Who said anything about DC vs Heller or the Supreme Court for that matter?
Got it, I've been trying really hard to find meaning in his posts, but I find the wording of most confusing. I figure there are 2 possibilities, either he is operating on a much higher plane of consciousness than I, or he simply suffered a severe head trauma, therefore making reasoned conversation nearly impossible.
Self-evident literally means "without proof." The proposition is supposed to stand on its own with no requirements, limitations or explanations. Thus, you cannot "prove" that something is self-evident. To attempt to do so is to deny that it is self-evident. "In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof." Further, the idea that rights can and are violated by due process, which is itself a right, categorically refutes natural rights philosophy. You cannot simultaneously say that rights exist outside government but they can be removed justifiably by law. It is an absurdity.
No wonder you are so confused. From Mirriam Webster self evident - clearly true and requiring no proof or explanation
I'm not confused at all. This has been a good conversation and I'd appreciate it if we didn't start that kind of bickering. Nothing productive about that. Like I said, you cannot prove something is self-evident, because to be self-evident is to be true without proof. It needs to be without proof, to stand on its own, otherwise it is not self-evident. That is just the facts, and there is no denying it. Unfortunately, the idea of rights being self-evident is absurd. They were embedded into the Constitution because people feared they wouldn't be "obvious" enough. The interpretation and therefore the application of rights relies on thousands upon thousands of legal documents and opinions. Further, the idea of a philosophical concept that requires no proof is basically the equivalent of saying God is self-evident. It is a religious belief, and as such, it denies logic... In fact, it requires you to do so, as to apply the need for proof to rights would destroy the very concept they are based on.
Only a few were added as amendments because some wanted to be sure that the ever present threat of government oppression would be too much temptation for many authoritarians. The amendments do not give us those rights but protects those rights against government oppression. The Framers well knew that "the people" and their rights were not considered to be beneficial for the authoritarian elite and the US Constitution was the first document to enshrine the people's rights over the ruling elite. I think you prove that they are not obvious to all but then most people use electricity without really understanding that how it works since it is not "obvious" though it is self evident.
well, make that two trolls...............you know I stopped addressing you along time ago. So who the hell said that was directed towards you? Feeling the need to get reported again?
