To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 24375
24374  |  24376
Subject: 
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:00:02 GMT
Viewed: 
2309 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

No No No.  Not to our FF.  Rights are given by God, or Nature's God, or
however you want to characterize our Creator.  This is [key], because if
rights are granted by anything else, they are easily taken away.

Um, these rights are already very easy to take away.

Sure, IRL, but I was speaking theoretically, as I believe were the FF.
Merely because someone is able to oppress me and take away my rights doesn't
justify it.

When you are oppressed you retain your rights.  There are only two ways to be
rid of rights: to surrender them (dangerously easy to do by mistake), and to
have them taken from you through due process as established by the US
Constitution.  I guess I'm agreeing with John on this one except for the God
part -- any inherency of the rights makes them constant.

I can accept your formulation more readily because it doesn't appeal to deus ex
machina, but I'm not comfortable with the notion of "inherency."  How is
inherency identified/verified, and who gets to decide what is inherent?

Hmm.  Now that I think about it, I guess "inherency" in this context could be
paraphrased as the "nature of the beast."  I suppose I'm even more comfortable
with that construction, though I still don't know how we can confirm any rights
as inherent.

Would it be acceptable to refer to "inherent preferences" instead of "inherent
rights?"

Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) The problem here is the conflation of legal notion with absolute reality. Rights are the legal/political expression of an aesthetic that nearly everyone (involved in the discussion) supports. While I wrote before that I was siding with John, (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
 
(...) When you are oppressed you retain your rights. There are only two ways to be rid of rights: to surrender them (dangerously easy to do by mistake), and to have them taken from you through due process as established by the US Constitution. I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR