10-19-2006, 03:40 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
Shifting gears, what if you are dealing with a culture who does not believe in Due Process? What if they deny the existence of such a natural right and want nmothing to do with your system, whether or not they get a trial that you call fair but up[on which they spit? DO we owe them anything then?
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
10-19-2006, 05:14 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I think I have answered this multiple times already. Life, liberty and property may all be removed at a whim unless you have due process. It is the gatekeeper to all other rights. Without it, no other right is ever secure. Just ask the Guantanamo detainees how they feel about their natural rights right now. I will leave the debate about whether due process is a substantive or procedural right for another day. As to your second question, a natural right cannot, by its very nature, be alienated. This is part of the basic premise in US law that you cannot waive the right to a criminal proceeding, for example. Whether or not the alleged terrorists hold contempt for due process is immaterial to the fact that they have a natural right to that process. I do find it ironic that you have so many problems with accepting due process as a natural right (because of its inherent vagueness) but have no problem accepting property as a natural right. Isn't that principle equally vague, if not more so? What property do we have a natural right to? Do I rightfully own all land? Do we all jointly hold all land and all other property? Or is it just a right to be able to hold property? If the latter, are you infringing on that right by placing conditions on my ability to hold property (price, interest, etc)? Given that you don't think due process is a natural right, does that mean I can simply take away your property for whatever reason I find proper? Can I simply take your life because I think you are too short to be useful or because I don't like people named Creekster? Can I remove your liberty because it is convenient for me to do so? If so, your system of natural rights is a system where the strongest prevail and all others be damned. What stands in the way of such hysteria? Due process. Last edited by Cali Coug; 10-19-2006 at 05:20 AM. |
|
10-19-2006, 07:07 AM | #33 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
[quote]
Quote:
Btw, I assume the reason you will leave the Substantive/procedural debate for another day is becasue that only has meaning in the context of our constituion and undermines your intial premise. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|||
10-20-2006, 01:27 AM | #34 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
[QUOTE=creekster;41618]
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Are you short? I picked an arbitrary characteristic that would never be a good premise for denying natural rights. Last edited by Cali Coug; 10-20-2006 at 01:30 AM. |
||||
10-20-2006, 01:45 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
|
Good to see Hoya is up to his typical bullshit.
|
10-20-2006, 02:17 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
10-20-2006, 02:26 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
|
|
10-20-2006, 03:13 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
10-20-2006, 03:36 PM | #39 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
[quote=hoyacoug;41722]
Quote:
Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness can be had in a cave, but due process requires collective agreement. It is a negotiated right, not a natural one, despite what Jefferson may have written or believed. And rights can be curtailed by action or agreement. Non-resident aliens combatting our forces curtail any claim they might have to due process.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
10-20-2006, 04:26 PM | #40 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Property does not suffer from the same ambiguity problem as DP. You can have and hold property. You are also reversing the argument. The fact that DP is hard to define doens't mean it isn't a natuiral right; the fact that it is defined in various ways supports that it arises from agreement, not from nature. Life and Liberty are not ambiguous concepts, even when cast in Marxist terms (such as you did in discussing Gollum's liberty in a cave). DP, OTOH, must be discussed and analyzed by the social compact to decide what steps must be taken to be fair. It has no natural definiton. It can only exist, meaning it does nto exist before, under the collective decision of a group. I realize we are all blowing smoke, and I typically find demands that other people produce evidence to support their arguments to be a bit much, becasue who does that on this type of board? However, I would be curious if you can actually point to somethign by Locke, Jefferson (who I truly admire but find in this area to be derivative) or Rousseau that supports your position. No big deal, really, just an earnest question. I have been too lazy to drag out my old books on this stuff, but maybe you have a better memory than me. Quote:
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
||||||
Bookmarks |
|
|