What if I believe I have the right to be hypocritical? Most people actually are hypocritical about lots of things, so that must be part of human nature.
Your golden rule analogy is good place to start, but it doesn’t get you much past a typical Libertarian Philosophy. Somehow, I don’t think that’s what you have in mind. 
The same way the Founding Fathers did it!
If it was a good enough methodology for George, Tom Jeff, and John and Sam Addams, et al, then I will stick by it too.
Then you’ll stick with allowing slavery to be determined according to the states and Blacks to be counted as 3/5ths of a person? That’s what their methodology came up with.
But here’s the thing: The Founders were a pretty homogeneous bunch. Throw in a bunch of Mormons, Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Rastas, etc. and you’re not going to get much that can be agreed on.
Then what do we do?
Thanks for this post. Can’t we in a real way follow the question of human rights down through the centuries , various civilizations and significant documents?
Then we aren’t talking about rights anymore. The whole point of a right is its universality. That’s one of the things that makes it different from just any random law.
So is greed and murder, but they don’t like other people practicing any of those on them. Which, again is what a right is in my view; what things are there that none of us want done to ourselves?
That’s not at all a libertarian view of rights. “I have my rights and my money, screw everyone else” is libertarian. There’s no contradiction between being a libertarian and, say, owning slaves since the only “rights” a libertarian cares about are his own.
I don’t know if I’d say irrelevant but it does seem that the Constitution was written with change in mind. I think they realized it needed to be open for future generations to work with. All the folks who quote the founders as if if that’s what we’re supposed to use as a measure are missing that point.
Let’s reverse the question, and say that all rights do come from God. Now we need to find out what God wants those rights to be. How do we do that? From ancient writings and unknown sources? Strong evidence points to man’s handiwork in those, not a god’s. And which ancient writings are God’s, which are bogus?
Anyone who claims that God put his desires in one particular book must explain why all the other religious texts are wrong and do not represent God’s wishes.
Anyone who believes that any god provided mankind with an incontrovertible list of rights is living in a fantasy world.
I’m not sure what you mean. It sounds like you think there is some logical progression taking us to a better and more universal sense of which rights are universal. But I think that only looks like that in retrospect if you already have some idea of where you want to end up.
Many people will say we’ve gone too far. Recognized too many rights. Many people will say we have a long way to go.
I suppose you could look at something like Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But that still doesn’t say where these rights come from, and it’s very easy to get people to agree to a document like this that has no legal status.
How do we know whose interpretation of God hands out those rights? Which human being tells us what rights God wants us to have? Are we missing any?
Even if there is a God, he has never told us what these unaliable rights are, so they’re still just whatever we say they are.
Cicero said"We are all born for justice ,that right is not based upon opinion but upon nature."
Not true. The power to establish, change and eliminate rights is explicitly vested with the people. The Constitution does not establish any unaliable rights, and as a matter of practical fact, there is no such thing.
I believe that (and can provide scriptural support - Gal 3:19,20) that any right we have as a human is from God’s Love for us and His ability and authority to mediate between us the ‘ruling powers’. We basically accept unjust and illegitimate authority, such as the US Government, and we even pledge allegiance to it, but God by far limits their power, praise be to God. Without God there would be no freedom at all, no mercy, and no love.
With God comes the ability to chose one’s path and to seek Him.
it’s not that there is no foundation but we would never discover that foundation without Him.
It’s not self-evident at all. Jefferson was completely full of shit on this one.
Hey, I have no problem going back to the animal kingdom where Darwin says we came from.
It is always easer to destroy something than to build it, and in the end whites can build better. Do not get mad at me this is a statement of historical fact. I suppose the management on this board will ban me now because I say a fact.
Look YOU Guys, Women, transvestites and other troglodytes— there is not a god that gives a shit from black Shin-0-la and a sea monkey.
Many of US whites, not all, have our human rights by force of arms, the US courts, USA police powers, state laws, and in so doing coercion, scheming, intimidation, and even wars and violence when needed are our tools for social justice as WE see it in accordance with our civil and criminal laws that are plainly written—SEE ORS 2009, chapters 164 and 163 as a very good start.
Do, I, a white, blond, blue eyed, want child rapist roaming the land like Mohammad (630AD)? HELL NO. ANY touch my girls but in public kindness I will cut the offenders guts out, eat them, and fry the offenders heart on wood grill, and never think twice about it; but I am restrained by USA state and USA federal laws. I cannot take the law into my own hands; though I’m willing, ready, and able to do so.
Where are MY rights to get to the root of the problem of human abominations, torts, and totally destroy the problems? They are in USA laws that I’m bound (chained) to.
Yeah, let us talk about human rights and restraints to those rights. Perhaps another thread should be opened and leave your brain dead god out of the conversation.
Don
What if I believe that everyone has the right to be hypocritical?
And the idea that rights are universal is about as reality based as the concept of unalienable rights. People in Saudi Arabia don’t have the right to practice whatever religion they want.
None of us? I don’t want anyone to tax me. So, I guess you don’t have the right to tax me.
Well, I’m just going to say that is factually incorrect and leave it at that. I’m not going to get into a debate on Libertarian Philosophy with you.
And again, why should we care? If we somehow proved that the racist Christians who claimed that God divinely ordained the enslavement of back people were right about what God wanted, should we then go ahead and re-enslave the blacks just because God wants it? Of course not.
This was all agreed on and resolved back in 1791.
This is not true. A “right” is nothing but a legal construction. The word has no meaning outside of the legal. We can have opinions on what rights people should be allowed to have, but they aren’t rights until the government says so. The idea that people have some kind of abstract, philosophucal “rights” which can be hindered by the law sounds nonsensical to me. The word, by definition, describes only what you are allowed to do in practice, not what you think you should be able to do.
I mean, who decides what a “right” is if we are permitted to say it’s whatever we think it should be in the abstract. If I say that God has given me the right to smoke pot while I’m driving, have I established that such a right actually exists? If a right does not exist in practice, then what IS it?