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: 
4933 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, (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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
    

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