The origin of our Individual Rights (please read before voting)

[GenSeneca]

Richard and I have been discussing the source of our rights and I'm curious as to your opinion for the origin of our rights.

There are three primary sources offered as the source of all rights:
A. Social - Rights are a creation of government and laws.
B. Religious - Rights are God given.
C. Natural - Rights exists in nature.

There are two specific types of rights, negative rights and positive rights. Negative rights are Individual Rights, they impose no obligation on others and therefore can be exercised by a lone individual or a group of individuals. Positive Rights are Collective Rights, they do impose obligations on others and therefore require a group of individuals in order to be exercised.

Our freedom of speech is an example of an Individual, or negative, Right. We require nothing from anyone else to exercise that right. This right can be exercised by a single individual, or any number of individuals, and in the absence of government and laws. It can be exercised by those with no knowledge of the concept of God. It can be exercised by any living human with the ability to communicate.

Our right to a trial by jury is a Collective, or positive, Right. In order for you to exercise that right, an obligation is placed on at least 13 people (jury of 12 and a judge). This right cannot be exercised by a lone individual but only by a group of individuals, as a collective. Such a right is the sole creation of government and its laws, it does not exist in nature, but a religious individual might argue that such a right is "God given".

For the purposes of the poll, I am only curious as to your opinion about the source of our Individual Rights - not our Collective Rights. Individual Rights are natural rights and collective rights are social rights. If you read the Constitution and pay particular attention to the Collective rights created by it, they were created to protect our individual rights. Collective rights that infringe upon, rather than protect, our individual rights are not rights at all but attacks on our liberty.

Now, if you haven't yet voted for a source of our Individual Rights, please do so and be sure to explain your position if you voted for "other".

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As usual....since the dawn of the ReRon Reagan Presiduncy (that'd, of course, signaled the rebirth of Republicans' assumed Divine Rights)...a "conservative" has determined (as another o' their Absolutes) that there are two specific types of rights; negative rights and positive rights..

Is there anyone (else) who's a little fatigued with "conservatives" defining the limits/parameters of YOUR Life/lifestyle?

"conservatives" don't own that conversation; no matter what they insist.

Despite what (too) many people have been conditioned to believe.....when a "conservative" sets-up a Premise, they're guessing.......just like everyone-else.

Despite what (too) many people have been conditioned to believe....."conservatives" are not Divine-beings. They're merely scared, little people, who're constantly attempting to establish themselves as the Rulemakers for The Game (a: the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual)....Rules by which they'd be able to expend as little-effort, as necessary.....and, still Win.

***

BTW....we Seculars have (already) established, by consensus, what we consider Rights....and (thru the power of Knowledge, rather than Belief), have determined there are 10 Rights!

 

[AugustineJurnior]

Richard and I have been discussing the source of our rights and I'm curious as to your opinion for the origin of our rights.

There are three primary sources offered as the source of all rights:
A. Social - Rights are a creation of government and laws.
B. Religious - Rights are God given.
C. Natural - Rights exists in nature.

There are two specific types of rights, negative rights and positive rights. Negative rights are Individual Rights, they impose no obligation on others and therefore can be exercised by a lone individual or a group of individuals. Positive Rights are Collective Rights, they do impose obligations on others and therefore require a group of individuals in order to be exercised.

Our freedom of speech is an example of an Individual, or negative, Right. We require nothing from anyone else to exercise that right. This right can be exercised by a single individual, or any number of individuals, and in the absence of government and laws. It can be exercised by those with no knowledge of the concept of God. It can be exercised by any living human with the ability to communicate.

Our right to a trial by jury is a Collective, or positive, Right. In order for you to exercise that right, an obligation is placed on at least 13 people (jury of 12 and a judge). This right cannot be exercised by a lone individual but only by a group of individuals, as a collective. Such a right is the sole creation of government and its laws, it does not exist in nature, but a religious individual might argue that such a right is "God given".

For the purposes of the poll, I am only curious as to your opinion about the source of our Individual Rights - not our Collective Rights. Individual Rights are natural rights and collective rights are social rights. If you read the Constitution and pay particular attention to the Collective rights created by it, they were created to protect our individual rights. Collective rights that infringe upon, rather than protect, our individual rights are not rights at all but attacks on our liberty.

Now, if you haven't yet voted for a source of our Individual Rights, please do so and be sure to explain your position if you voted for "other".

Let's assume you and I are Americans. On what basis can you defend "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights" unless at the absolute least it is a rational God who gave rational humans a rational world. A Muslim who will kill you because in conscience you can't be a Muslim is ipso facto irrational , anti-American, and paints God as horrible.

As Pope Benedict put it:
" spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...""

Now don't hide, I assume you accept being a citizen.

 

[Phoenix68]

.
'69

.

.​

 

[Phoenix68]

Let's assume you and I are Americans. On what basis can you defend "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights" unless at the absolute least it is a rational God who gave rational humans a rational world. A Muslim who will kill you because in conscience you can't be a Muslim is ipso facto irrational , anti-American, and paints God as horrible.

.

.​