The positive right game.

I have a right to a crate full of hot, hot North Korean refugee girls. In schoolgirl outfits.

And pigtails.

 

They are getting money out of greed???? HAHAHA! But, him wanting their money would not be getting money out of greed? Even though someone else earned it, and he just wants to take it! Oh my GOD!

Someone smack that kid!

"Just because it's what I want"....unfreakinbelievable.

 

A quick google search as turned up someone arguing that internet is a right.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/5064

Look if you can think it up, some lefty is claiming it's a right.

 

I don't think there are natural rights in the sense you're talking about. You don't have a natural right to free speech or self-defense. If you did, nobody would be able to shut you up or beat you up. Those are rights that are met by society.

 

If your logic were correct, the government that did not recognize the right to life and executed individuals at will would not be in violation of human rights.

Anyway, that's certainly not the ideals our country was founded on.

 

What does "rights that are met by society" mean?

 

It means you don't have any rights unless the people charge have it in their hearts to give you some. Basically he's a slave and thinks we are slaves too.

To that I say, Live free or die: death is not the worst of evils!

Also, I'd like to hear him define 'inalienable rights' if he believes in them.

 

This is the current situation with every government I'm aware of. Even governments that don't practice capital punishment still reserve (and practice) the right to wage war.

That's a different argument. And I think I disagree -- a right to eat has been recognized in this country since before the current government came to power in the 18th century.

 

It was the OP's term. He was arguing that the rights that he does want to recognize are based in nature and that the rights he doesn't want to recognize are not based in nature. I'm pointing out that none of these rights are based in nature -- they're all human inventions, easily ignored by other humans if those humans so choose.

 

I don't think anyone is a slave. I don't believe in slavery. I think that the practice of slavery is inherently criminal. But whether or not you are free is a choice for you to make, and whether or not to recognize your freedom is a choice for others to make. Nature has nothing to do with it. Nature has no opinion on freedom or tyranny.

You have the rights that you insist upon. No more, no less. The government doesn't give you rights. It just recognizes them, or doesn't.

I very much agree.

An inalienable right is a right that is not alien to anyone. Doesn't matter where you are or where you come from.

 

There is no such thing as rights, only privileges granted by tyrants.

One can argue over who the tyrant is who granted these privileges, god, nature, society, the government etc. but this does not make them rights since they can be rescinded, abrogated, ignored, abused, or otherwise interfered with and that means they cannot possibly be rights.

 

Good god, that's what you think the word inalienable means?

inalienable: Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

The declaration of independence is based on the concept of natural rights and was the foundation for our concept of liberty and moral government.

That is why our bill of rights does not grant rights. The bill of rights protects us from government which may otherwise violate our rights. The bill of rights spells out what our government must not do, to preserve our liberty. We are already free, that is our natural state. Government can only take away our liberty, it cannot grant it.

 

Yes. That's what it means. In (not) alien (foreign) able (can be). Inalienable = can not be foreign.

Funny, I can't find that term.

 

This isn't really true. They are all granted by nature in the sense that the only way anyone can take them away from you or limit them in any way is through physical force. Those rights are all naturally there unless someone has the physical ability to overpower you and take them from you.

 

I have a right to keep my income.

_

 

Not according to Democrats. Hand it over you white 1%er racist Republican plantation master!

 

Have you read the declaration of independence? If you have, you certainly didn't understand it. Here, let's try again in light of the debate thus far in this thread. I'll only quote the relevant part.

Feel free to Google natural law and natural rights if you need more help understanding the language used.

 

Minor quibble, you still have the right even if your ability to exercise that right has been taken away.

 

Wait, so I was thinking. What would the declaration of independence look like if it had been written by Obama?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that equality shall be imposed upon all men by force, that they are shackled by their fellow man with certain unalienable obligations, that among these are the provision of shelter, food and healthcare."

 

That doesn't differentiate them from any other right, though. And a 'natural right to property,' which nobody can really argue exists in nature, is predicated on one's physical ability to overpower others.

There are no natural rights. Or all rights are natural, whether you agree with them or not. There is no real difference between what the OP is trying to categorize as 'negative rights' or 'positive rights,' or 'natural rights' or 'unnatural rights.' It's all just an excuse to recognize the rights that the OP likes and disregard the rights that the OP doesn't -- which is still perfectly valid, you can like or dislike whatever rights you want, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the logic.

There is no natural right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. There is no natural right to property. There is no natural right to freedom of speech, bearing arms, etc. Those are all rights that we have chosen as a people to recognize in our dealing with each other. It's a cultural distinction, and those rights are not distinguished by their origins in nature.

 

I'm more than passingly familiar with the concept. Thank you for your interest in my education, though.

There are no natural or unnatural rights. Rights are inherently artificial concepts which can be recognized or dismissed by other people as they see fit -- and whether or not you have them is purely a matter of whether or not you insist upon them. If you say that you have a natural right to property, it's up to the people you're dealing with to either recognize that or not, and it's up to you to decide whether or not you will force the issue.

 

I would agree with this on a philosophical level. On a practical level, though?

 

All of it? Do you recognize that right in others, or just yourself? Do you allow everyone you deal with to keep 100% of their income?

 

So what youre saying is, if I want to do something but someone forces me not to, then they forced me not to.

You sir, are brilliant