"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I think there is only ONE natural right of any kind and that is the right to preserve your life by all means nessecary. This is the only human right derived from the natural state of a human being, and modernly expresses itself as the modern right of self defense.

Doesn't that go back to the cannibal thing though? If you both have the rights to preserve your life by all means necessary then you both have the right to kill each other for food and the right to kill the other one to keep him from killing you. So which killer is in the right?

You're thinking in absolutes...

The human social dynamics is often very murky... and it's usually left to the victors who determines what is "right".

Well, but there are difference between "a right" and "what's right".

I have the right to keep my money in my pockets and watch a man starve to death instead of buying him food. But that doesn't make it right.

The rights of one person will always somehow infringe on the rights of another.

And often a person will choose to give up one of their rights in order to do what is right.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

I have the right to keep my money in my pockets and watch a man starve to death instead of buying him food. But that doesn't make it right.

First off... I agree with you here...

BUT, for the sake of argument... how do you know "that doesn't make it right"? Are you responsible to make sure that this man has food so that he doesn't starve? It's not so much that "it's the right thing to do", but more of "it's the good thing for me to do". I think there's a distinction there... no?

The rights of one person will always somehow infringe on the rights of another.

I don't agree with that premise.

Classic example... I'm protesting outside of the Supreme Court over the ACA... You're on the other side supporting the ACA efforts. We're both executing our own rights to protest. But, at no time we're infringing on each other.

And often a person will choose to give up one of their rights in order to do what is right.

Not quite sure what you exactly mean.... (not trying to purposely be dense here...). I'm guessing you're referring to things like the layers of regulation of buying guns with respect to 2nd amendment? Because the right thing here is to have some sensible regulation over purchasing guns. Right?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

I have the right to keep my money in my pockets and watch a man starve to death instead of buying him food. But that doesn't make it right.

First off... I agree with you here...

BUT, for the sake of argument... how do you know "that doesn't make it right"? Are you responsible to make sure that this man has food so that he doesn't starve? It's not so much that "it's the right thing to do", but more of "it's the good thing for me to do". I think there's a distinction there... no?

Well, "the right thing to do" would be subjective and you would probably get a variety of answers from different groups just as you would with the "what are natural rights".

My argument would be more from the "Rights vs. Morals" side of things. By Right I can do what is best for me but morally it would be better to do whats good for the community. I have the right to stockpile lots of food and let it expire and then throw it in the trash, but the moral thing to do might be to donate everything that expires in a month to the local food pantry.

The rights of one person will always somehow infringe on the rights of another.

I don't agree with that premise.

Classic example... I'm protesting outside of the Supreme Court over the ACA... You're on the other side supporting the ACA efforts. We're both executing our own rights to protest. But, at no time we're infringing on each other.

But if we both yell then we don't allow neither side to talk. So both our rights end up infringing each other and canceling each other out (similar to the "we both have a right to guarantee our own survival, which would include killing each other" scenario).

And often a person will choose to give up one of their rights in order to do what is right.

Not quite sure what you exactly mean.... (not trying to purposely be dense here...). I'm guessing you're referring to things like the layers of regulation of buying guns with respect to 2nd amendment? Because the right thing here is to have some sensible regulation over purchasing guns. Right?

Well, I'm talking more along the line of the natural rights and not constitutional rights like speech or guns (although somebody might argue that guns are needed for the right to guarantee life).