The Democrat Party Hates America

[Gary Childress]

But if we are to look at them reasonably, we cannot believe they are "natural" or "God given". Religious people who say rights are God-given are simply saying we need not justify them in any logical or human way. That has no place in a reasonable philosophical discussion.

On the contrary, ...

You're not there, Walker. Stop pretending to be.

[Alexiev]

But if we are to look at them reasonably, we cannot believe they are "natural" or "God given". Religious people who say rights are God-given are simply saying we need not justify them in any logical or human way. That has no place in a reasonable philosophical discussion.

On the contrary, the rights are the demonstrated basis of successful governing for an earnest population that knows we're not far removed from the lords of the flies, a political philosophy that has unleashed human potential for huge forward leaps in the comfort and security of life via innovation and progress. Just think what would be possible without the corrupt elites who screw up a perfect system to make life grand, for those who deserve it. All the problems today are caused by the corruption of the enlightened philosophy laid out in the US Constitution. They are problems caused by the politicians, not the population.

Since I agree with you, your "on the contrary" is incorrect and unnecessary. Of course classic liberalism -- which emphasized human rights -- has galvinized human well-being (despite specifically limiting freedom, although also limiting government). However, your description of the U.S Constitution (under which the owning of chattel slaves was an accepted practice) as "enlightened" is nonsense. Indeed, "enlightened" is a word freighted with religious meaning. Despite the belief of some American conservatives, the "founding fathers" were not "enlightened" by some divine edict. They -- like the rest of us -- were imperfect humans. I assume even you do not want to return to slavery, or a time when women were not allowed to vote.

Also, the notion that rights exist without enforcement (or, at least, public acceptance) is silly. The right to life is enforced by laws prohibiting murder. The right to property is enforced by the billy clubs and gaols of the police. The right to free speech protects against officious governments. These rights impose duties on our fellow humans. We should not accept them as "natural" or "God Given". Indeed, they have varied dramatically from culture to culture and from country to country. Most of the European "liberal democracies" (for example) prohibit hate speech. I (and I assume you) think this is an unnecessary and overly restrictive regulation of free speech. But that is not because there is some divine law preventing governments from regulating speech. Contracts make lying illegal is some cases. Perjury is illegal. I (and probably you) support these governmental limits on free speech. Each case must be argued on its merits --not on the basis of the divine enlightenment of the Founding Fathers, or the divine endowment of "natural rights".

[Immanuel Can]

Of course classic liberalism -- which emphasized human rights -- has galvinized human well-being (despite specifically limiting freedom, although also limiting government).

Good thing, too. Government desperately needs to be limited. Those that have been unrestrained have historically done nothing but awful deeds.

However, your description of the U.S Constitution (under which the owning of chattel slaves was an accepted practice) as "enlightened" is nonsense.

It's not, actually. Because the Constitution didn't enshrine the owning of chattel slaves. That it was done at the time is true: but it's not due to the Constitution. It both preceded the Constitution and continued beyond, and happened in nations not governed by the Constitution, like the Arab states, where it continued long after it did in the West, and where it persists to this day.

But what the Constitution did, and this really was an "enlightened" move, was extend all the basic human rights in principle to all humans. It started a process by which it became more or less inevitable that not only poor whites, but slaves, women and even children would obtain basic rights. That was new: and it really was a great innovation.

Also, the notion that rights exist without enforcement (or, at least, public acceptance) is silly.

Actually, it's not, at all.

The idea of "rights" has to precede enforcement, in fact. It is not because of enforcement that you have a "right to life," for example; it is because you have a right to life that the government and its agencies are morally obligated to enforce such a right. You've got the cart before the horse, there.

That's what the writers of the Constitution meant when they said that rights are "unalienable." To "alienate" means to "take away". They were not saying that it is practically impossible for such rights to be infringed upon; they were saying that if anybody so infringes, they are a bad person for so doing and should be stopped by whatever means are available. "Unalienable" rights are those that inhere in a person by way of him/her being a person; and any action against such rights is a violation of the sanctity of a person, an inherently self-defeating act, and a violation against God Himself, according to Locke.

Again, you've got the case backward. The rights come first: the enforcement is a consequence of the rights, not the cause of them. As the Constitutions has it, these rights are "endowed by God." (That's the actual wording) They are not up for dependency on human enforcement.

We should not accept them as "natural" or "God Given".

You're exactly opposite to the Constitution on that.

Indeed, they have varied dramatically from culture to culture and from country to country.

That's only because not all countries honour human rights. It's not because humans don't have those rights.

Consider the slaves: had they a right to be free? According to your theory, you'd have to say, no. Why? Because slavery was enforced. But you've completely forgotten that there's such a thing as tyrannical or illegitimate enforcement.

Most of the European "liberal democracies" (for example) prohibit hate speech. I (and I assume you) think this is an unnecessary and overly restrictive regulation of free speech.

Well, it's an undefined term. And it's always dangerous to give any government the liberty to define the terms it enforces. They usually abuse it. So one might say, instead, that there should be a prohibition against direct incitement to violence. And that would be fair enough. Short of that, though, free speech should be generally granted.

That being said, "speech" is not one of Locke's fundamental human rights. It's more of a borderline case. "Conscience," yes: but the right to air it, not necessarily.

Each case must be argued on its merits...

Easier said than done. Without a basic concept of rights, it's impossible to say what a "merit" would look like.

[Alexiev]

It's not, actually. Because the Constitution didn't enshrine the owning of chattel slaves. That it was done at the time is true: but it's not due to the Constitution. It both preceded the Constitution and continued beyond, and happened in nations not governed by the Constitution, like the Arab states, where it continued long after it did in the West, and where it persists to this day.

But what the Constitution did, and this really was an "enlightened" move, was extend all the basic human rights in principle to all humans. It started a process by which it became more or less inevitable that not only poor whites, but slaves, women and even children would obtain basic rights. That was new: and it really was a great innovation.

The Constitution may have started such a process, but the process is ongoing. The Constitution did not guarantee "life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness" to slaves. It did not guarante eequal voting rights to women, or non-property owners. It was a baby step in the right direction,. and, at least, the Democrat Party was not the Party that attempted to overturn the Constitutional will of the voters. That was Donald Trump and his anrti-Constitutional Republican thugs.

The idea of "rights" has to precede enforcement, in fact. It is not because of enforcement that you have a "right to life," for example; it is because you have a right to life that the government and its agencies are morally obligated to enforce such a right. You've got the cart before the horse, there.

That's what the writers of the Constitution meant when they said that rights are "unalienable." To "alienate" means to "take away". They were not saying that it is practically impossible for such rights to be infringed upon; they were saying that if anybody so infringes, they are a bad person for so doing and should be stopped by whatever means are available. "Unalienable" rights are those that inhere in a person by way of him/her being a person; and any action against such rights is a violation of the sanctity of a person, an inherently self-defeating act, and a violation against God Himself, according to Locke.

Again, you've got the case backward. The rights come first: the enforcement is a consequence of the rights, not the cause of them. As the Constitutions has it, these rights are "endowed by God." (That's the actual wording) They are not up for dependency on human enforcement.

As I've pointed out before, "rights" and "duties" are flip sides of the same coin. The right to life exists ONLY inasmuch as it imposes a duty on other humans not to kill. This is obvious. We all die. The right to life doesn't (and can't) protect us. The right to property exists ONLY inasmuch as it imposes a duty on other humans to honor it. OUr houses can still burn, or be washed away by tsunamis. Which came first? That's a meaningless question. They came (and could only evolve) simultaneously.

That's only because not all countries honour human rights. It's not because humans don't have those rights.

Consider the slaves: had they a right to be free? According to your theory, you'd have to say, no. Why? Because slavery was enforced. But you've completely forgotten that there's such a thing as tyrannical or illegitimate enforcement.

That's incorrect, because you clearly don't understand "my theory". Of course there's tyrannical enforcement (as when Trump tried to establish an autocracy in the U.S.). My point is that which rights are legitimate and should be honored is up for debate; it cannot be solved by simple assertion. The debate (in my opinion) should be based on whether the honoring of particular rights conduces human welfare. Some nations (for example) think citizens should have a right to medical care. To argue that right is "trumped" by the right to property (someone has to pay for the medical care through taxes) because property rights are "natural rights" and the right to health care is a fiat right is a specious argument. If you want to make a persuasive argument against National Health Care, in order to be rational you must try a different tactic.

Well, it's an undefined term. And it's always dangerous to give any government the liberty to define the terms it enforces. They usually abuse it. So one might say, instead, that there should be a prohibition against direct incitement to violence. And that would be fair enough. Short of that, though, free speech should be generally granted.

That being said, "speech" is not one of Locke's fundamental human rights. It's more of a borderline case. "Conscience," yes: but the right to air it, not necessarily.

Well, your policy would imprison Trump, but allow perjury, deceitful advertising, fraudulent business practices (it would, at least, protect Trump in his civil trial) and copyright infringements. I'm a supporter of free speech; I oppose European bans on hate speech; I think copyrights should be enforced less stringently than they are now; I approve of American slander and libel laws as opposed to British. My point is that it's not so simple.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not, actually. Because the Constitution didn't enshrine the owning of chattel slaves. That it was done at the time is true: but it's not due to the Constitution. It both preceded the Constitution and continued beyond, and happened in nations not governed by the Constitution, like the Arab states, where it continued long after it did in the West, and where it persists to this day.

But what the Constitution did, and this really was an "enlightened" move, was extend all the basic human rights in principle to all humans. It started a process by which it became more or less inevitable that not only poor whites, but slaves, women and even children would obtain basic rights. That was new: and it really was a great innovation.

The Constitution may have started such a process, but the process is ongoing.

Only in two places, really: Western Europe, particularly England, and America. In the rest of the world, chattel slavery continued unimpeded.

The Constitution did not guarantee "life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness" to slaves.

It didn't exclude them. It also didn't exclude women. From the moment the Constitution was written, both were on a slippery slope towards full rights. You might well say that the Constitution started...or more precisely, codified and accelerated...the road toward universal human rights.

...at least, the Democrat Party was not the Party that attempted to overturn the Constitutional will of the voters.

Actually, the Dems were the party of slavery, the KKK, Segregation...they don't have a great history, when it comes to human rights. And I don't think you want to hold up their conduct during the last election as exemplary.

The idea of "rights" has to precede enforcement, in fact. It is not because of enforcement that you have a "right to life," for example; it is because you have a right to life that the government and its agencies are morally obligated to enforce such a right. You've got the cart before the horse, there.

That's what the writers of the Constitution meant when they said that rights are "unalienable." To "alienate" means to "take away". They were not saying that it is practically impossible for such rights to be infringed upon; they were saying that if anybody so infringes, they are a bad person for so doing and should be stopped by whatever means are available. "Unalienable" rights are those that inhere in a person by way of him/her being a person; and any action against such rights is a violation of the sanctity of a person, an inherently self-defeating act, and a violation against God Himself, according to Locke.

Again, you've got the case backward. The rights come first: the enforcement is a consequence of the rights, not the cause of them. As the Constitutions has it, these rights are "endowed by God." (That's the actual wording) They are not up for dependency on human enforcement.

As I've pointed out before, "rights" and "duties" are flip sides of the same coin.

Well, that's really a different issue.

Rights inhere in the individual. Duties are responsibilities to others.

The right to life exists ONLY inasmuch as it imposes a duty on other humans not to kill.

Oh, that's definitely not right. That would mean that my rights depend on the willingness of others in my immediate proximity to grant them. If that had been the case, the slaves would never have been freed.

We all die. The right to life doesn't (and can't) protect us.

This misunderstands what a "right" is. A right isn't a "protection," far less some sort of guarantee one's rights will be given. It's an entitlement by nature of being, under God.

Rights can be violated: but the very fact that the term "violation" applies to them means that the person still HAS the right, it's just being dishonoured. As we say, "He is not getting his rights." That separates the getting from the right-to-have.

The right to property exists ONLY inasmuch as it imposes a duty on other humans to honor it.

No, this is also wrong. If you steal my house or my money, you've violated my right to property. But I still have the right.

That's only because not all countries honour human rights. It's not because humans don't have those rights.

Consider the slaves: had they a right to be free? According to your theory, you'd have to say, no. Why? Because slavery was enforced. But you've completely forgotten that there's such a thing as tyrannical or illegitimate enforcement.

My point is that which rights are legitimate and should be honored is up for debate; it cannot be solved by simple assertion.

It's not being "simply asserted".

You should read Locke. He gives the right explanation for why rights exist, and for which rights are the fundamental ones: and in fact, it's really Locke that the Constitution is aiming to replicate, right down to his specific language. There are reasons why certain rights inhere, such as the right to life, liberty, property and conscience, and some alleged rights, like the "right" to one's own body, or the "right" to free healthcare, or the "right" to a living wage do not.

The debate (in my opinion) should be based on whether the honoring of particular rights conduces human welfare.

That's dangerous. Because "welfare" is up for grabs. The government or some other tyrannical agency can define it as they want it to be. But your sense of what serves the human "welfare" may not be what the regnant government wishes to produce.

No, we need a more universal basis: and that's why we call it a "human right," not an "American right" or a "British right." Human rights have to be assertable over and against governments. If they're not, how are you going to justify challenging an unjust regime?

Well, it's an undefined term. And it's always dangerous to give any government the liberty to define the terms it enforces. They usually abuse it. So one might say, instead, that there should be a prohibition against direct incitement to violence. And that would be fair enough. Short of that, though, free speech should be generally granted.

That being said, "speech" is not one of Locke's fundamental human rights. It's more of a borderline case. "Conscience," yes: but the right to air it, not necessarily.

Well, your policy would...allow perjury, deceitful advertising, fraudulent business practices...and copyright infringements.

That depends. (I'm leaving the red herring, Trump, out of this. Well, orange herring, if you prefer; either way, he's not the issue. Rights exist without him.)

Deceitful advertising, we have plenty of. For better or worse, it's been allowed. I think it's worse, but some think it's a price we have to pay. Okay. But perjury is, by definition "false witness," and "fraud" and "copyright" are property issues. So in such cases, you have the rights of one person in conflict with the rights of another. In such instances, the right to free speech can be properly weighed off by saying that it must respect these other rights...and that's perfectly fair. Human rights belong to all humans individually, and one's do not obliterate those of the others.

[Alexiev]

Again, you've got the case backward. The rights come first: the enforcement is a consequence of the rights, not the cause of them. As the Constitutions has it, these rights are "endowed by God." (That's the actual wording) They are not up for dependency on human enforcement....

Well, that's really a different issue.

Rights inhere in the individual. Duties are responsibilities to others.

Duh! You are repeating the obvious. But you still don't understand what constitutes "rights". The only thing thatCAN constitute a right is the imposition of a duty on someone else. That's what I'm trying to explain by agreeing that rights are only a protection in one particular manner: they area protection against the deriliction of a duty on the part of other people. That's what I've been saying (in clear, plain English) all along.

Oh, that's definitely not right. That would mean that my rights depend on the willingness of others in my immediate proximity to grant them. If that had been the case, the slaves would never have been freed....


This misunderstands what a "right" is. A right isn't a "protection," far less some sort of guarantee one's rights will be given. It's an entitlement by nature of being, under God.

You are doing it again! Of course rights are a protection?! What can the right to property be other than a protection against other people taking your property or using it without permission? Try to concentrate! You pretend to disagree with me (because you don't like my supposed politics) but your disagreement is illogical. Perhaps you can explain to me what rights do other than protect one person's life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. from abuse by other people. If you can't (as is surely the case) perhaps you shouid give up on repeating yourself and making no sense.

Rights can be violated: but the very fact that the term "violation" applies to them means that the person still HAS the right, it's just being dishonoured. As we say, "He is not getting his rights." That separates the getting from the right-to-have.

No, this is also wrong. If you steal my house or my money, you've violated my right to property. But I still have the right.

Oh, good grief. You are right --- but it's totally irrelevant to the argument. Of course rights can be violated, which simply means that the duties of the violators have been ignored or defied. It can mean nothing else.

Consider the slaves: had they a right to be free? According to your theory, you'd have to say, no. Why? Because slavery was enforced. But you've completely forgotten that there's such a thing as tyrannical or illegitimate enforcement.

It's not being "simply asserted".

You should read Locke. He gives the right explanation for why rights exist, and for which rights are the fundamental ones: and in fact, it's really Locke that the Constitution is aiming to replicate, right down to his specific language. There are reasons why certain rights inhere, such as the right to life, liberty, property and conscience, and some alleged rights, like the "right" to one's own body, or the "right" to free healthcare, or the "right" to a living wage do not.

The Founding Fathers were clever enough to leave "property" out of the Declaration. That's because it is not an "unalienable right endowed by our Creator", as any governemnt that proposes a system of taxation is well aware.

The debate (in my opinion) should be based on whether the honoring of particular rights conduces human welfare.

That's dangerous. Because "welfare" is up for grabs. The government or some other tyrannical agency can define it as they want it to be. But your sense of what serves the human "welfare" may not be what the regnant government wishes to produce.

No, we need a more universal basis: and that's why we call it a "human right," not an "American right" or a "British right." Human rights have to be assertable over and against governments. If they're not, how are you going to justify challenging an unjust regime?


That depends. (I'm leaving the red herring, Trump, out of this. Well, orange herring, if you prefer; either way, he's not the issue. Rights exist without him.)

Deceitful advertising, we have plenty of. For better or worse, it's been allowed. I think it's worse, but some think it's a price we have to pay. Okay. But perjury is, by definition "false witness," and "fraud" and "copyright" are property issues. So in such cases, you have the rights of one person in conflict with the rights of another. In such instances, the right to free speech can be properly weighed off by saying that it must respect these other rights...and that's perfectly fair. Human rights belong to all humans individually, and one's do not obliterate those of the others.

Dangerous? Perhaps your notion that rights are "God-given" is dangerous. Do Muslims havethe god-given right to put Pagan Infidels to the sword if they don't convert? They think that's a God-Given right. Which is more dangerous? Reasonably and philosophically determining what rights and duties we think conduce human welfare? Or relying on supernatural forces to inform us what rights (for example) those accused of Witchcraft have?
IN addition, rights obviously do "obliterate those (the rights) of the others." How you can say otherwise, given that I've repeatedly pointed out that property rights and the right tofreedom of movement conflict, is a mystery. The right to free speech conflicts with the right of defendants to a fair trial. Think. There are dozens of examples.

[Immanuel Can]

Again, you've got the case backward. The rights come first: the enforcement is a consequence of the rights, not the cause of them. As the Constitutions has it, these rights are "endowed by God." (That's the actual wording) They are not up for dependency on human enforcement....

Well, that's really a different issue.

Rights inhere in the individual. Duties are responsibilities to others.

...you still don't understand what constitutes "rights".

I do, actually. I know the entire history of the concept. So I know for sure you're wrong, but I'm trying to say it as nicely as I can.

Oh, that's definitely not right. That would mean that my rights depend on the willingness of others in my immediate proximity to grant them. If that had been the case, the slaves would never have been freed....This misunderstands what a "right" is. A right isn't a "protection," far less some sort of guarantee one's rights will be given. It's an entitlement by nature of being, under God.

Of course rights are a protection?!

No, they aren't.

You, yourself imply that they can be violated...hence the need for "protection." I can tell you as often as I wish that I have a right not to be killed; it won't take the gun out of your hand. I can tell you that I have a right to my property; it won't keep you from stealing it. What it will do, and all it can do, is make you a bad person if you violate it. But it's not some self-enforcing thing.

The Founding Fathers were clever enough to leave "property" out of the Declaration.

It wasn't "clever." As it turns out, it was a mistake. Because what they substituted for it was a "right to the pursuit of happiness." That's a faux "right," and not one that had anything to do with Locke's supplied rationale...at least if understood in the modern way. If understood in the Aristotelian way -- which is how the founders actually understood it -- it was a subset of the right to free conscience, and as such, okay. But property got missed; and that turned out to be a tragic oversight.

That's because it is not an "unalienable right endowed by our Creator", as any governemnt that proposes a system of taxation is well aware.

Taxation is theft. No entity gave the government the right to take individuals' property.

Dangerous? Perhaps your notion that rights are "God-given" is dangerous.

I wouldn't say so. Historically, it's been a powerful force for good.

Do Muslims havethe god-given right to put Pagan Infidels to the sword if they don't convert?

Muslims worship Allah. Allah is a false, war-like "god" that hates everbody who doesn't submit to it. It has nothing to do with the real God, and Muslims have no concept of universal human rights, for exactly that reason.

IN addition, rights obviously do "obliterate those (the rights) of the others."

They don't. Your rights end at the tip of my nose, and my rights end at the tip of yours. That's what makes it wrong for you to perjure yourself at my trial, or me at yours; if I do, I'm using my right to free speech to obliterate your right to freedom...which is an even more primary right, actually. So that's not legit.

[Alexiev]

No, they (rights) aren't (a form of protection).

You, yourself imply that they can be violated...hence the need for "protection." I can tell you as often as I wish that I have a right not to be killed; it won't take the gun out of your hand. I can tell you that I have a right to my property; it won't keep you from stealing it. What it will do, and all it can do, is make you a bad person if you violate it. But it's not some self-enforcing thing.

Are laws a form of protection? Are moral tenets a protection? Of course laws and moral tenets can be violated. Forms of protection don't always work. Discussing this further is ridiculous. Your point that if forms of protection can be violated, they are not forms of protection is assinine.

It wasn't "clever." As it turns out, it was a mistake. Because what they substituted for it was a "right to the pursuit of happiness." That's a faux "right," and not one that had anything to do with Locke's supplied rationale...at least if understood in the modern way. If understood in the Aristotelian way -- which is how the founders actually understood it -- it was a subset of the right to free conscience, and as such, okay. But property got missed; and that turned out to be a tragic oversight.

How is property an "unalienable right" given that it is alienated every day by taxes and other laws regulating it? Once again, this is ridiculous.

Muslims worship Allah. Allah is a false, war-like "god" that hates everbody who doesn't submit to it. It has nothing to do with the real God, and Muslims have no concept of universal human rights, for exactly that reason.

This is incorrect and ridiculous. Unlike "Jesus", "Allah" is simply the word "God" in Arabic. It is not a proper name. When you say "Allah is a false, war like God", you are saying "God is a false warlike God". Thanks for the admission. That clears up your position.

You haven't answered my question. What do rights accomplish other than imposing duties on other humans? If you can answer it without agreeing with me about "rights", you are smarter than I think you are. By the way, I don't remember much Locke, but of course I know that Jefferson cribbed the Declaration from him, and that he thought rights derived from God. However, he doubtless (being reasonably intelligent) would have agreed that rights do nothing other than impose duties.

[Immanuel Can]

No, they (rights) aren't (a form of protection).

You, yourself imply that they can be violated...hence the need for "protection." I can tell you as often as I wish that I have a right not to be killed; it won't take the gun out of your hand. I can tell you that I have a right to my property; it won't keep you from stealing it. What it will do, and all it can do, is make you a bad person if you violate it. But it's not some self-enforcing thing.

Are laws a form of protection? Are moral tenets a protection?

It depends.

Laws only "protect" in the case of those who respect them. Moral tenets only "protect" in the case of those who observe them. But "rights" exist whether or not a group of people tries to deny them, or actively suppresses them.

It's only in this sense that we can say that though the laws of the South once favoured slavery, and the powers in charge (the Democrats) supported those laws, slaves still had an unalienable human right to be free. That's what "unalienable" means: it means, "Nobody can legitimately take it away": they can only do so at the expense of doing wrong, of doing harm, of violating that to which the slave is always rightfully entitled.

It wasn't "clever." As it turns out, it was a mistake. Because what they substituted for it was a "right to the pursuit of happiness." That's a faux "right," and not one that had anything to do with Locke's supplied rationale...at least if understood in the modern way. If understood in the Aristotelian way -- which is how the founders actually understood it -- it was a subset of the right to free conscience, and as such, okay. But property got missed; and that turned out to be a tragic oversight.

How is property an "unalienable right" given that it is alienated every day by taxes and other laws regulating it?

Again, you've got the whole idea of "rights" wrong. Rights are not things that cannot be taken away; they are things that can never be legitimately taken away. That is, the Democrats were wrong to have slaves; and they were wrong even when they believed they were right. They still had no legitimacy in enslaving blacks.

Property fits in with Locke's triad of rights: life, liberty and property, all essential for the fundamental right of conscience. To take somebody's life is to take from them what God has given them as their own; to take their liberty is to deprive them of the opportunity to act responsibly and accountably before their creator; to take their property is to deprive them of any means to actualize their liberty, and thus to act responsibly, and thus to fulfill their obligations in life. Locke makes all of that clear in his "Second Treatise." You should read it.

Muslims worship Allah. Allah is a false, war-like "god" that hates everbody who doesn't submit to it. It has nothing to do with the real God, and Muslims have no concept of universal human rights, for exactly that reason.

Unlike "Jesus", "Allah" is simply the word "God" in Arabic.

Only because Muslims only acknowledge Allah. But Allah has completely different features from YHWH of the Jews and Jesus of the Christians. Allah is an austere, distant and unloving God, whose whole focus is submission, not relationship. That's the essential meaning of Islam, in fact: "submission."

No knowledgeable Jew, Muslim or Christian is going to accept your cramming of them into one identity. If you don't know that, you don't know any of their theologies.

You haven't answered my question. What do rights accomplish other than imposing duties on other humans?

I missed it. My apologies.

It's a bit of an odd question: what do they..."accomplish"? In what sense? A "right" is a statement of entitlement derived from the fact of all men's creation and responsibility to God. It's not the sort of thing that "accomplishes" things. Laws and morals also don't "accomplish" things...but they certainly define the limits of appropriate or legal action. I suppose that's an "accomplishment." And rights are the universal basis of human dignity and freedom: so I guess that's an "accomplishment." I think the word's still odd, though.

I don't remember much Locke, but of course I know that Jefferson cribbed the Declaration from him, and that he thought rights derived from God.

He did. And he's less precise than Locke.

He took Locke's triad as givens, rather than putting a full, philosophical rationale in the Constitution: but that's because the Constitution wasn't really a philosophical document but a political and legal paper. Thus, his first concern, it seems, was with mobilizing the public by articulating a common set of goals, rather than painstakingly rationalizing them to academics, as Locke had already done. That's why, in order to understand Jefferson's suppositions, one has to go back to Locke. It's only in Locke you get some idea of what theory of things was motivating Jefferson's claims.

[Alexiev]

Laws only "protect" in the case of those who respect them. Moral tenets only "protect" in the case of those who observe them. But "rights" exist whether or not a group of people tries to deny them, or actively suppresses them.

It's only in this sense that we can say that though the laws of the South once favoured slavery, and the powers in charge (the Democrats) supported those laws, slaves still had an unalienable human right to be free. That's what "unalienable" means: it means, "Nobody can legitimately take it away": they can only do so at the expense of doing wrong, of doing harm, of violating that to which the slave is always rightfully entitled.

In other words, the "unalienable right"to liberty accomplished absolutely nothing for the slaves. That's because an unalienable right to liberty MEANS that other people have a duty not to enslave others. Because slave owners shirked their duty, the "right" to liberty was meaningless for the slaves.

Again, you've got the whole idea of "rights" wrong. Rights are not things that cannot be taken away; they are things that can never be legitimately taken away. That is, the Democrats were wrong to have slaves; and they were wrong even when they believed they were right. They still had no legitimacy in enslaving blacks.

Property fits in with Locke's triad of rights: life, liberty and property, all essential for the fundamental right of conscience. To take somebody's life is to take from them what God has given them as their own; to take their liberty is to deprive them of the opportunity to act responsibly and accountably before their creator; to take their property is to deprive them of any means to actualize their liberty, and thus to act responsibly, and thus to fulfill their obligations in life. Locke makes all of that clear in his "Second Treatise." You should read it.

Huh? Rights get taken away all the time, as in the case of the slaves. Perhaps they shouldn't get taken away, but the fact that they do is obvious. We all die. So much for the "right to life" being anything other than a duty on the part of our fellow humans.

Only because Muslims only acknowledge Allah. But Allah has completely different features from YHWH of the Jews and Jesus of the Christians. Allah is an austere, distant and unloving God, whose whole focus is submission, not relationship. That's the essential meaning of Islam, in fact: "submission."

No knowledgeable Jew, Muslim or Christian is going to accept your cramming of them into one identity. If you don't know that, you don't know any of their theologies.

Actually, that's what all knowledgeable Muslims do. They acknowledge Jews and Christians as "people of the book", and agree that they worship the same God as Muslims.

It's a bit of an odd question: what do they..."accomplish"? In what sense? A "right" is a statement of entitlement derived from the fact of all men's creation and responsibility to God. It's not the sort of thing that "accomplishes" things. Laws and morals also don't "accomplish" things...but they certainly define the limits of appropriate or legal action. I suppose that's an "accomplishment." And rights are the universal basis of human dignity and freedom: so I guess that's an "accomplishment." I think the word's still odd, though.

Obviously, the right to liberty didn't accomplish much for slaves. I'll rephrase, though. What does a "right" mean? The right to life clearly doesn't mean we won't die. The only thing it means (the only thing it can mean) is that other people have a duty not to kill us.

He took Locke's triad as givens, rather than putting a full, philosophical rationale in the Constitution: but that's because the Constitution wasn't really a philosophical document but a political and legal paper. Thus, his first concern, it seems, was with mobilizing the public by articulating a common set of goals, rather than painstakingly rationalizing them to academics, as Locke had already done. That's why, in order to understand Jefferson's suppositions, one has to go back to Locke. It's only in Locke you get some idea of what theory of things was motivating Jefferson's claims.

Locke based his notion of rights on the Will of God. That's not persuasive to those of us who are not religious. In addition, Jefferson didn't write the Constitution; he cribbed the Declaration of Independence from Locke. Of course Jefferson was not a Christian (and he was a slave owner who never freed his own slave mistress). He was a deist. I hope you are more familiar with Locke than with U.S. history, about which you seem to be particularly ignorant. We all know Lincoln was a Republican. We also know that was 160 years ago. We all know the Southern Democrats were racist in the past. That was 70 years ago. The Democrat party then worked to end legal discrimination and Jim Crow, passing the Civil Rights act. The Republicans continue to fight against voting rights, gerrymander districts, and foment rebellion against legally held elections.

Who is it that hates America?

[Immanuel Can]

Laws only "protect" in the case of those who respect them. Moral tenets only "protect" in the case of those who observe them. But "rights" exist whether or not a group of people tries to deny them, or actively suppresses them.

It's only in this sense that we can say that though the laws of the South once favoured slavery, and the powers in charge (the Democrats) supported those laws, slaves still had an unalienable human right to be free. That's what "unalienable" means: it means, "Nobody can legitimately take it away": they can only do so at the expense of doing wrong, of doing harm, of violating that to which the slave is always rightfully entitled.

In other words, the "unalienable right"to liberty accomplished absolutely nothing for the slaves.

It accomplished a very great deal. It eventually led to an abolitionists movement, then to the Civil War, Desegregation, equality under the law, and even to affirmative action.

Because slave owners shirked their duty, the "right" to liberty was meaningless for the slaves.

Not at all. It gave them hope, first, then generated the convictions that would drive Abolitionism. It reminded black Americans that they were human beings, and all human beings have a right to liberty; and it reminded Northern Republicans, in particular, that they had a battle to fight with a high moral stake...the rights of men.

You can't belittle that. It led to nothing less than the Emancipation for which the slaves so longed.

Again, you've got the whole idea of "rights" wrong. Rights are not things that cannot be taken away; they are things that can never be legitimately taken away. That is, the Democrats were wrong to have slaves; and they were wrong even when they believed they were right. They still had no legitimacy in enslaving blacks.

Property fits in with Locke's triad of rights: life, liberty and property, all essential for the fundamental right of conscience. To take somebody's life is to take from them what God has given them as their own; to take their liberty is to deprive them of the opportunity to act responsibly and accountably before their creator; to take their property is to deprive them of any means to actualize their liberty, and thus to act responsibly, and thus to fulfill their obligations in life. Locke makes all of that clear in his "Second Treatise." You should read it.

Huh? Rights get taken away all the time, as in the case of the slaves.

I said that. But I also pointed out that it cannot be legitimately done.

Do you understand what that means? It means that any enslaver is behaving in a way that is morally evil. It means that taking a person's right is actually an act against God Himself. It means that those who would free the slaves have a high moral duty to do so. That's very far from nothing, even if it made no impression on the Democrats. It's yet another reason they were profoundly wrong, in the first place.

Only because Muslims only acknowledge Allah. But Allah has completely different features from YHWH of the Jews and Jesus of the Christians. Allah is an austere, distant and unloving God, whose whole focus is submission, not relationship. That's the essential meaning of Islam, in fact: "submission."

No knowledgeable Jew, Muslim or Christian is going to accept your cramming of them into one identity. If you don't know that, you don't know any of their theologies.

Actually, that's what all knowledgeable Muslims do. They acknowledge Jews and Christians as "people of the book", and agree that they worship the same God as Muslims.

That's propaganda, I hate to tell you. When in the minority, the Muslims always sing the "tolerance" and "religion of peace" song. But when they get to be a sizeable political presence, that all changes instantly. They even have term for this: taqiyya -- the deliberate and religiously-sanctioned lying to the infidel to achieve an advantage for Islam. You can look it up online: it's their own theology.

Islam is a religion in which, unlike in Christianity, there is never any actual separation of religion and State. All doctrines in Islam are not primarily personal but political. The goal is always an Islamic state.

Obviously, the right to liberty didn't accomplish much for slaves.

How many slaves do you see in America today?

I'll rephrase, though. What does a "right" mean? The right to life clearly doesn't mean we won't die. The only thing it means (the only thing it can mean) is that other people have a duty not to kill us.

It means that, but it means more. It means, as Locke said, that anybody who tries to take it away is behaving objectively immorally, and that such a person is actually defying God. As such, it gives permission and even responsibility to good people to put a stop to it.

That's a huge advance. Don't underestimate it. It translates historically into such things as moral codes, legal codes, judicial actions, penal systems, restitution, and righteous interventions, such as Abolition.

He took Locke's triad as givens, rather than putting a full, philosophical rationale in the Constitution: but that's because the Constitution wasn't really a philosophical document but a political and legal paper. Thus, his first concern, it seems, was with mobilizing the public by articulating a common set of goals, rather than painstakingly rationalizing them to academics, as Locke had already done. That's why, in order to understand Jefferson's suppositions, one has to go back to Locke. It's only in Locke you get some idea of what theory of things was motivating Jefferson's claims.

Locke based his notion of rights on the Will of God. That's not persuasive to those of us who are not religious.

Yes, he did. But that is really their problem, not ours. The non-believing also answer to God, whether they know it or not.

In addition, Jefferson didn't write the Constitution; he cribbed the Declaration of Independence from Locke. Of course Jefferson was not a Christian (and he was a slave owner who never freed his own slave mistress). He was a deist.

And a Democrat. Yes.

We all know the Southern Democrats were racist in the past.

I actually don't think that's common knowledge. One of my black colleagues, for example, though he had been to university in Florida, was entirely unaware of the fact that it was only Democrats that owned slaves or opposed Segregation. He was shocked and appalled, when I pointed that out and he looked it up for himself. He had been voting Democrat, on the mistaken belief that the Democrats were the party of black rights.

The Democrat party then worked to end legal discrimination and Jim Crow, passing the Civil Rights act.

That's a myth. Every governor who opposed desegregation was a Democrat. Every slave-owner was a Democrat. The KKK was a thug-wing of the Democrats. The Democrats were into slavery from the word "go," just as they are now into using blacks for political power, but never getting them out of the ghettos.

You've been taught the myth of the Southern Strategy under Nixon https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00 ... -SD003.pdf But it was not in the 70s when blacks went over to the Democrats: it was in the '30s, during the so-called "New Deal." Statistically, they swung over for the free stuff, but they knew they were leaving the party of Abolition and emancipation, and quite a lot of them had cognitive dissonance about doing it. It seems that Socialist programs are inevitably the way the Democrats bribe the voters into surrendering to their agenda. They certainly did that with the black vote.

Who is it that hates America?

Corrupt politicians, who make their millions by milking her, and who have globalist aspirations. Also, their Leftist-trained children, who imagine that Socialism, which has only ever killed people, will render them booty instead. Also international terrorists, who hate all that America stands for, and the heads of foreign countries that stand to gain a lot by America going down.

All these want America to fall.

Why do you ask?

[Alexiev]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion, even though your contributions are bigotted, misguided, and factually incorrect. Your ridiculous tarring of Democrats with their sins of more than 100 years ago is mere silliness, as is your notion that Civil Rights were not promoted by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Your knowledge of U.S. history was exposed when you stated that Jefferson wrote the Constitution.

Christianity and the idea of unalienable rights were important factors in the demise of slavery. But the right to liberty did not exist for those enslaved prior to abolition. It was not a legal right, nor was the right to life or property (for slaves). It may have imposed moral duties on some abolitionists -- but not on the slave owners, or the politicians that passed the Dred Scott act. I'm glad you consider the abrogation of those supposed rights illegitimate, but you don't get to decide either the laws of the land, or the moral tenets to which others will adhere. In addition, conflating property rights with basic "natural" rights is, by your own definitions, a form of tyranny.

[Immanuel Can]

Racist Dems.jpg

Thanks for contributing to the discussion, even though your contributions are bigotted, misguided, and factually incorrect.

Your ridiculous tarring of Democrats with their sins of more than 100 years ago is mere silliness,..

It's not "tarring" if they did it. And they did.

I understand your shock, though. We've been profoundly lied to, and transparently so, about this. The historical evidence is simply overwhelming: the Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation. That's pretty traumatizing, if one has been clinging to the myth of the tolerant Democrat.

I should also point out it wasn't 100 years ago that the Democrat governors turned the hoses on the freedom marchers and set the dogs against school children. It was barely fifty. Some people, and maybe some who are still Democrat voters, were alive during that time.

Christianity and the idea of unalienable rights were important factors in the demise of slavery. But the right to liberty did not exist for those enslaved prior to abolition.

This is incorrect. The right existed: it was simply being dishonoured by the Democrats. And, of course, they were evil for doing that.

[Alexiev]

Racist Dems.jpg

Thanks for contributing to the discussion, even though your contributions are bigotted, misguided, and factually incorrect.

Your ridiculous tarring of Democrats with their sins of more than 100 years ago is mere silliness,..

It's not "tarring" if they did it. And they did.

I understand your shock, though. We've been profoundly lied to, and transparently so, about this. The historical evidence is simply overwhelming: the Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation. That's pretty traumatizing, if one has been clinging to the myth of the tolerant Democrat.

I should also point out it wasn't 100 years ago that the Democrat governors turned the hoses on the freedom marchers and set the dogs against school children. It was barely fifty. Some people, and maybe some who are still Democrat voters, were alive during that time.

Christianity and the idea of unalienable rights were important factors in the demise of slavery. But the right to liberty did not exist for those enslaved prior to abolition.

This is incorrect. The right existed: it was simply being dishonoured by the Democrats. And, of course, they were evil for doing that.

If you claim Italians feed Christians to the lions, that "tars" Italians, even though they did it. In recent years the Democrats have been more inclusive of racial minorities than the Republicans, and more active in promoting the rights of black Americans. As to whether rights exist a priori to any cultural or human recognition of them, I suppose that if you believe they derive from the will of God, you have a point. Nonetheless, from a political, cultural and sociological standpoint, rights are nothing more than duties on the part of other people. Even if they do derive from God (not -- horrors -- Allah, even though Allah means God) they impose duties on humans, and that is all that they do and all that they can do. Rights exist only in the form of duties, as is obvious from the fact that the right to life doesn't protect anyone from dying, it simply protects him or her from being killed by other people. It means nothing other than a duty on the part of others, wherever it derives.

[Immanuel Can]

If you claim Italians feed Christians to the lions, that "tars" Italians, even though they did it.

I don't. But actually, to "tar" somebody is to give them a smear they haven't merited. The Dems have merited theirs, including recently.

In recent years the Democrats have been more inclusive of racial minorities than the Republicans, and more active in promoting the rights of black Americans.

Well, I think the BLM riots are instructive. In them, Democrats supported the sacking, looting and burning of the inner cities, so they could increase their own power. Maybe you can explain how American blacks having their own neighbourhoods destroyed, then being de-policed and losing their retail outlets, all while receiving no part of the millions allegedly donated their 'cause' turned out to be a great thing for them. But I think you'll find that those neighbourhoods are not only not better but substantially worse for the backing they got from the Dems.

Why is it that so many cities are run by Democrat mayors...Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, New York...and on and on and on...and in all these cities in which Democrats have ruled pretty much unimpeded for fifty or a hundred years now, the plight of the inner city is as bad or worse than it ever was? How well is LA doing right now? San Fran? Portland? Seattle? If the Democrats are so pro-black, why are things so bad for blacks under Democrat regimes?

Maybe the Democrats have not shed their history quite as well as they would like you to believe.

As to whether rights exist a priori to any cultural or human recognition of them, I suppose that if you believe they derive from the will of God, you have a point.

Fair enough.

Nonetheless, from a political, cultural and sociological standpoint, rights are nothing more than duties on the part of other people.

You mean from a godless standpoint? From a godless standpoint, they're a fiction.

Even if they do derive from God they impose duties on humans, and that is all that they do and all that they can do.

They do quite a lot, actually. They can be used to structure a system of justice, for example, or to assert one's human entitlements against a corrupt system, or to inform one's own moral decision-making in relations with others. They're a kind of information -- not a kind of compulsion: that is, they tell one what one's duty is...they don't force one to obey that duty. But they're also backed by divine authority, so they have their role, as well, in final judgment for those that treat them too lightly.