Inalienable Rights
The Global Market
02-10-2003, 23:42
Whereas: Life, liberty, and property are inalienable rights conferred to humankind. A society that does not protect such rights will soon descend into the realm of death, desolation, and tyranny.
Resolved: That no government shall take away the life, liberty, or property of its citizens, without due process of law, or in cases of clear and imminent danger.
What do you all think?
I believe it's stepping on my toes as a dictator. I'm kind enough to my people and they are indebted to me for that. Aren't they? After all, since I own most of the property why shouldn't I feel free to take what's mine? Hmm... too much loose interpretation. It could go many ways. Too risky.
What do you all think?
I wonder if you can guess.
The Global Market
02-10-2003, 23:50
All right then I wont TG anyone about this.
All right then I wont TG anyone about this.
Does the continued spread of capitalism count as clear and imminent danger?
The Global Market
02-10-2003, 23:59
I'll give you clear.
It's not imminent, it's long term.
And it certainly isn't danger. Capitalist countries have hte highest qualities of lives AND human rights records in the world.
I'll give you clear.
It's not imminent, it's long term.
And it certainly isn't danger. Capitalist countries have hte highest qualities of lives AND human rights records in the world.
That's a shame. Capitalist countries which exploit poorer countries can afford higher standards of living. Poorer exploited countries have low standards of living as a direct result of this. Capitalism is a global system, you of all people should understand that. You cannot isolate it to one country and use that country as an example of why it is wonderful without considering the negative impact on other nations.
Anyways property rights = bad and your proposal = sux. But then you already knew that.
Besides, we should be able to exploit the lesser countries anyway. If we can't that takes all the fun out of being a country. Doesn't it?
The Global Market
03-10-2003, 00:19
I'll give you clear.
It's not imminent, it's long term.
And it certainly isn't danger. Capitalist countries have hte highest qualities of lives AND human rights records in the world.
That's a shame. Capitalist countries which exploit poorer countries can afford higher standards of living. Poorer exploited countries have low standards of living as a direct result of this. Capitalism is a global system, you of all people should understand that. You cannot isolate it to one country and use that country as an example of why it is wonderful without considering the negative impact on other nations.
Anyways property rights = bad and your proposal = sux. But then you already knew that.
Yet... third-world countries that have adopted a more capitalist way of thinking are also the ones that are growing the fastest... at rates exceeding those of first-world countries.
Poor countires are poor because they missed out on late 18th and 19th century capitalism. Now they have a chance to redeem themselves.
<sigh> Where I'm from, peace, order, and good government are considered inalienable rights.
I don't believe you listed them.
As for life being an inalienable right...does that mean you don't support the death penalty, euthanasia, abortion AND rail incessantly at pharmaceutical companies that don't provide inexpensive, life-saving medications to those who need them?
Oh, and God/Nature for letting people die in the first place...
Just asking.
The Global Market
03-10-2003, 00:44
No if something is inalienable that means a legitimate government can't take it away.
I'm pro-abortion, and I support the death penalty only in EXTREME cases. I am also pro-euthanasia.
A life can be taken away by your own volition... or by nature, because the law of reality overrides all of our laws.
However, I don't constantly "rail at pharmaceutical companies." They are exersizing what I like to call "property rights."
Why is it that you the defenders of oppression and repressive government keep thinking capitalists like me are irrational pinko-commies??
No if something is inalienable that means a legitimate government can't take it away.
I'm pro-abortion, and I support the death penalty only in EXTREME cases. I am also pro-euthanasia. (emphasis mine)
A life can be taken away by your own volition... or by nature, because the law of reality overrides all of our laws.
However, I don't constantly "rail at pharmaceutical companies." They are exersizing what I like to call "property rights."
Why is it that you the defenders of oppression and repressive government keep thinking capitalists like me are irrational pinko-commies??
Oh - so the right to life is therefore qualified, and as such is not inalienable? I do wish you'd be more clear about that. First you say the right to life is not something a legitimate government can take away, and in the next breath, you support the government in taking life from fetuses, folks on death row, people who are sick. If something is inalienable, you can't qualify it in that fashion. It either is a right for everyone, or it's a right for no one.
The Global Market
03-10-2003, 00:52
No if something is inalienable that means a legitimate government can't take it away.
I'm pro-abortion, and I support the death penalty only in EXTREME cases. I am also pro-euthanasia. (emphasis mine)
A life can be taken away by your own volition... or by nature, because the law of reality overrides all of our laws.
However, I don't constantly "rail at pharmaceutical companies." They are exersizing what I like to call "property rights."
Why is it that you the defenders of oppression and repressive government keep thinking capitalists like me are irrational pinko-commies??
Oh - so the right to life is therefore qualified, and as such is not inalienable? I do wish you'd be more clear about that. First you say the right to life is not something a legitimate government can take away, and in the next breath, you support the government in taking life from fetuses, folks on death row, people who are sick. If something is inalienable, you can't qualify it in that fashion. It either is a right for everyone, or it's a right for no one.
An inalienable right is a RIGHT THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
It comes from social contract theory.
Abortion has to deal with the mother's right to her body... which falls under her right to life. The fetus is only in the mother's body BY HER PERMISSION. She has the right to remove it from her body. If it dies, that is simply a tragic side-effect.
It works like this: you have the right to own a gun. You do not have the right to take one without paying for it.
The death penalty is applied WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW. At least I hope it is. If it isn't well then that's unjustified.
Euthanasia is VOLUNTARY. You can kill yourself if you want.
No if something is inalienable that means a legitimate government can't take it away.
I'm pro-abortion, and I support the death penalty only in EXTREME cases. I am also pro-euthanasia. (emphasis mine)
A life can be taken away by your own volition... or by nature, because the law of reality overrides all of our laws.
However, I don't constantly "rail at pharmaceutical companies." They are exersizing what I like to call "property rights."
Why is it that you the defenders of oppression and repressive government keep thinking capitalists like me are irrational pinko-commies??
Oh - so the right to life is therefore qualified, and as such is not inalienable? I do wish you'd be more clear about that. First you say the right to life is not something a legitimate government can take away, and in the next breath, you support the government in taking life from fetuses, folks on death row, people who are sick. If something is inalienable, you can't qualify it in that fashion. It either is a right for everyone, or it's a right for no one.
An inalienable right is a RIGHT THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
It comes from social contract theory.
Abortion has to deal with the mother's right to her body... which falls under her right to life. The fetus is only in the mother's body BY HER PERMISSION. She has the right to remove it from her body. If it dies, that is simply a tragic side-effect.
It works like this: you have the right to own a gun. You do not have the right to take one without paying for it.
The death penalty is applied WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW. At least I hope it is. If it isn't well then that's unjustified.
Euthanasia is VOLUNTARY. You can kill yourself if you want.
Oh my, you didn't mention the due process of the law part earlier, did you? I strongly suggest that you define these sorts of statements first. After all 'inalienable rights' is not defined the same way in every nation - RL or IC.
And euthanasia and suicide are not synonymous. Many people who wish to be euthanized require the assistance of someone else.
Oh, and regarding property rights - are you familiar with eminent domain? Oh wait, you did say 'without due process of the law'.
So any of your inalienable rights can be taken away if the government and court agree to do so.
It really doesn't sound so inalienable to me. (and I'll let the pro-life/pro-choice folks fight about a fetus' right to life if they wish. I imagine that most pro-lifers would disagree with your statement.
The Global Market
03-10-2003, 01:02
I said Due Process of Law... if you cared to read my first post...
Ah. I re-read it, and stand corrected on that particular point.
Be that as it may, your definition of inalienable would not stand up from many perspectives.
However, the primary point is that the true definition of inalienable is: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. The moment you start qualifying this statement, it is no longer inalienable.
The rights you listed, by your own definition, cannot truly be considered inalienable, or legitimate governments (or whomever) wouldn't have the right to take them away, even with due process.
All right then I wont TG anyone about this.
Does the continued spread of capitalism count as clear and imminent danger?
Yes it does! Screw them damn caps. Dictatorship Supremacy!
Neo Nuria
03-10-2003, 01:56
Ah. I re-read it, and stand corrected on that particular point.
Be that as it may, your definition of inalienable would not stand up from many perspectives.
However, the primary point is that the true definition of inalienable is: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. The moment you start qualifying this statement, it is no longer inalienable.
The rights you listed, by your own definition, cannot truly be considered inalienable, or legitimate governments (or whomever) wouldn't have the right to take them away, even with due process.
I believe when he means "inalienable rights", it doesn't matter what "inalienable" means, if he had defined what he meant. inalienable in the POLITICAL and not english sense, is what Global Market has said; that the government can't take it away without due process of law.
Neo Nuria
03-10-2003, 01:58
Whereas: Life, liberty, and property are inalienable rights conferred to humankind. A society that does not protect such rights will soon descend into the realm of death, desolation, and tyranny.
Resolved: That no government shall take away the life, liberty, or property of its citizens, without due process of law, or in cases of clear and imminent danger.
What do you all think?
short, sweet, precise. What can i say?
Qaaolchoura
03-10-2003, 01:59
I am in the life, libery, and human dignity, as opposed to unbridled consumerism camp.
Global Market, I would challenge you to prove that these rights are inalienable. If you were able to do so from a theoretical standpoint, I would be more inclined to seriously consider this law. However, since I believe that rights are a construct of society, and I realize that societies differ on their outlooks, I cannot approve of a resolution that would impose our own western biases on others.
Moreover, I would like to know which social contract theorist you seem to think considers 'Life, liberty and happiness' inalienable. If it is Locke, as I suspect, I think you need to reread Second Treatise, as you clearly don't understand how his contract works.
The Global Market
03-10-2003, 02:15
I come from a non-Western society.
Most of the people there are eager to accept Western values, because they are the ones that guarentee the best standard of living.
Yes, rights are a social construct. And they are a necessary one.
I come from a non-Western society.
Most of the people there are eager to accept Western values, because they are the ones that guarentee the best standard of living.
Yes, rights are a social construct. And they are a necessary one.
If rights area a social contract they cannot be considered universal and absolute, as different cultures will value different rights.
Perhaps one nation does not value property as a right, and never has. Who are you to say that their culture is fundementally wrong? How can you know your idea of rights is more legitimate than theirs?