4 ms·

> the entire foundation of the American constitutional system is based on the idea of natural rights Although I believe natural rights aren't real, they are a

> the entire foundation of the American constitutional system is based on the idea of natural rights Although I believe natural rights aren't real, they are a very useful concept to convince people of. If you're able to get people to believe "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are somehow fundamental makes it much less likely for them to take those things away from others. So although the founders were wrong in a literal sense, their ideas did immeasurable good, so I do have a lot of respect for them. > A Constitutional republic gives the lamb power over the 2 wolves. Republics are still democracies, especially in the way that matters here. A system of government that is beholden to the vote of the people. There would be nothing wrong or unnatural about everyone deciding property rights no longer exist and voting to seize the means of production. We make our own rights. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s... doesn't support your marijuana stance. Decades ago the american people by HUGE majority wanted weed illegal. As that changed it became legal, which it largely is today in places that want it to be. You can certainly get into federalism versus local government here, but what matters is that we are creating our rights as our stances changes, just as we have for our entire history.

notch656a 4y ago
KYC is a fourth amendment violation as it as a government imposed search. Weed is much harder to defend as a right as it is not an enumerated right, unlike the right to be secure in your person and papers.
junofan 4y ago
I think you’re getting tripped up on language, which is a shame, since you’re missing out on some interesting ideas. The natural rights thing is more of a thought experiment: first, imagine there is no government. What do people have? What’s the “state of nature?” This was a pretty radical idea in Hobbes’s time. So it doesn’t make sense to believe a thought experiment isn’t real. Like, it’s a thought experiment. Discussing which rights exist within the framework is the thought experiment. Then social contract theory is like okay, why should anybody give this up? What do they gain? Large groups of people don’t just do stuff for no reason (supposedly). Democracy means power comes from the common people, not necessarily voting. E.g. Athenian democracy selected officials at random.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  > imagine there is no government. What do people have? What’s the “state of nature?” People have whatever they can take for themselves, a.k.a. nothing. The base state is that people have no rights at all. Rights are nothing but an agreement among society that if everyone follows these rules things will be better. That agreement can change at any time.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    It's an interesting difference of opinion. There are those who believe natural rights are naturally conferred to the individual, and others that believe rights are conferred by society. These two personality types often clash harshly, because one sees society as having no right to interfere with his rights and the social rights person sees the dissenting individual as having no right to abstain from the "social contract" that they at best agreed to merely by being born and remaining in the boundary of many members of that society. In the earlier days, the US was far more individualistic, at least in the Western territories. There was some hope for the more individualistic rights leaning individual. Now I'm not sure what our last bastion of hope is from persons who don't recognize us as having any rights without dear government.
phpisthebest 4y ago
>>Republics are still democracies, no, Constitutional Republic differ in one HUGE way, they disallow the majority some power. Every one should reject the concept of Majority Rules. That is a TERRIBLE way to organize society and leads to all manner of abuse. Majority power needs to be check with natural rights that can never be violated for any reason. >>A system of government that is beholden to the vote of the people This is an incorrect statement if you are talking about the Federalist system of government created by the founder of the US. it is much more complex by design than a simple majoritarian democracy. People with a similar world view as yours have been working for 100's of years to dismantle the republic and replace it with a more majoritarian system, leading to all kinds of problems, including the massive division we see in the nation today. >There would be nothing wrong or unnatural about everyone deciding property rights no longer exist and voting to seize the means of production. We make our own rights. There would be lots wrong and immoral in doing that, you seem to believe in the concept of "life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" well that is based in the principle of Self-ownership, one can not own themselves without the ability to trade the product of their own body freely with others. "Collective" ownership of "means of production" means the collective also owns the output of the labor, and in effect owns you the individual, you cease to be a single person, and become "one of us"
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  You're really getting caught up in semantics here. Your read on what democracy means is just leading you to talk past me. A democracy is a system of government where most adults can vote. That's it. A Constitutional Republic is a type of democracy. And the fact that we aren't a direct democracy doesn't change the fact that rights are not natural. Take anarchy. What rights do people have? None. Because there are no natural rights, only the legal ones we create for ourselves. In our system our rights stem from the will of the people. Not the hand of god. Nor the universe. If the people elect a government on the basis of granting or removing rights that's what the government will do.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    it is not semantics, it is Philosophy and the foundation of ethics If there are no natural rights, then it would not be unethical for a government to infringe upon those rights, Thus says a China or North Korea or Russia are perfectly ethical governments because the government has choose their citizens do not have X rights and that is in their authority to do has a government. Instead the founding principle is "we hold these truths to be self evident" this is a foundational principle, and Philosophy of natural rights. Rights that no ethical government can violate even if the will of the people was to "agree" to the infringement. Authoritarianism is the belief that governments are the all powerful, and people are subservient to the government, and government bestowed up on the citizens their rights, I reject Authoritarianism completely and with out reservation Pointing out that government can be instituted that would infringe on natural rights is not proof that natural rights are non-existent

notch656a 4y ago

KYC is a fourth amendment violation as it as a government imposed search. Weed is much harder to defend as a right as it is not an enumerated right, unlike the right to be secure in your person and papers.

junofan 4y ago

I think you’re getting tripped up on language, which is a shame, since you’re missing out on some interesting ideas. The natural rights thing is more of a thought experiment: first, imagine there is no government. What do people have? What’s the “state of nature?” This was a pretty radical idea in Hobbes’s time. So it doesn’t make sense to believe a thought experiment isn’t real. Like, it’s a thought experiment. Discussing which rights exist within the framework is the thought experiment. Then social contract theory is like okay, why should anybody give this up? What do they gain? Large groups of people don’t just do stuff for no reason (supposedly). Democracy means power comes from the common people, not necessarily voting. E.g. Athenian democracy selected officials at random.

colinmhayes 4y ago
> imagine there is no government. What do people have? What’s the “state of nature?” People have whatever they can take for themselves, a.k.a. nothing. The base state is that people have no rights at all. Rights are nothing but an agreement among society that if everyone follows these rules things will be better. That agreement can change at any time.
- notch656a 4y ago
  It's an interesting difference of opinion. There are those who believe natural rights are naturally conferred to the individual, and others that believe rights are conferred by society. These two personality types often clash harshly, because one sees society as having no right to interfere with his rights and the social rights person sees the dissenting individual as having no right to abstain from the "social contract" that they at best agreed to merely by being born and remaining in the boundary of many members of that society. In the earlier days, the US was far more individualistic, at least in the Western territories. There was some hope for the more individualistic rights leaning individual. Now I'm not sure what our last bastion of hope is from persons who don't recognize us as having any rights without dear government.

phpisthebest 4y ago

>>Republics are still democracies, no, Constitutional Republic differ in one HUGE way, they disallow the majority some power. Every one should reject the concept of Majority Rules. That is a TERRIBLE way to organize society and leads to all manner of abuse. Majority power needs to be check with natural rights that can never be violated for any reason. >>A system of government that is beholden to the vote of the people This is an incorrect statement if you are talking about the Federalist system of government created by the founder of the US. it is much more complex by design than a simple majoritarian democracy. People with a similar world view as yours have been working for 100's of years to dismantle the republic and replace it with a more majoritarian system, leading to all kinds of problems, including the massive division we see in the nation today. >There would be nothing wrong or unnatural about everyone deciding property rights no longer exist and voting to seize the means of production. We make our own rights. There would be lots wrong and immoral in doing that, you seem to believe in the concept of "life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" well that is based in the principle of Self-ownership, one can not own themselves without the ability to trade the product of their own body freely with others. "Collective" ownership of "means of production" means the collective also owns the output of the labor, and in effect owns you the individual, you cease to be a single person, and become "one of us"

colinmhayes 4y ago
You're really getting caught up in semantics here. Your read on what democracy means is just leading you to talk past me. A democracy is a system of government where most adults can vote. That's it. A Constitutional Republic is a type of democracy. And the fact that we aren't a direct democracy doesn't change the fact that rights are not natural. Take anarchy. What rights do people have? None. Because there are no natural rights, only the legal ones we create for ourselves. In our system our rights stem from the will of the people. Not the hand of god. Nor the universe. If the people elect a government on the basis of granting or removing rights that's what the government will do.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  it is not semantics, it is Philosophy and the foundation of ethics If there are no natural rights, then it would not be unethical for a government to infringe upon those rights, Thus says a China or North Korea or Russia are perfectly ethical governments because the government has choose their citizens do not have X rights and that is in their authority to do has a government. Instead the founding principle is "we hold these truths to be self evident" this is a foundational principle, and Philosophy of natural rights. Rights that no ethical government can violate even if the will of the people was to "agree" to the infringement. Authoritarianism is the belief that governments are the all powerful, and people are subservient to the government, and government bestowed up on the citizens their rights, I reject Authoritarianism completely and with out reservation Pointing out that government can be instituted that would infringe on natural rights is not proof that natural rights are non-existent