Funbobby, Even with the most tyrannical government, natual law cannot be avoided. Like Locke pointed out, oppression causes revolution, without it there would be no reason to overthrow a system. Again, by denying someone their rights the course of events dictate eventually that the perpetrator has forfeited their own right. A good example that comes to mind is the assassination of Julius Caesar. When he began defying natural rights and became a dictator the responce from the Senate was the course that followed.
Natural rights such as the right to self defense is not made valid by the 2nd ammendment. The entire bill of rights was a compromise. Because people such as Patrick Henry and other anti-federalists were losing the debate at the time, and the populace was moving towards a central government, they found allies in trying to uphold natural rights within the Constitution, and presto they codified them. Natural Rights preexist any document or government. If rights were dictated by governments as your arguements suggest, than Stalin was perfectly in his rights to starve to death millions in Ukraine. That arguement is madness.
Bingo.
Oh right, who can forget when Stalin was prevented from killing millions of people by their natural rights, those work great!
There are billions of Chinese and Indian people and Europeans who are not having a revolution and don't believe in free speech or the right to bear arms.
"Natural Rights preexist any document or government. "
Nope the idea is a product of the Enlightenment.
Stalin was perfectly in his rights to starve to death millions in Ukraine.
Of course he was, that example is good proof that your natural rights are worthless, all those Ukrainians had natural rights didn't they? What good did that do them?
Did he get in any trouble for it? Did he get arrested?
He should have been punished if violating natural rights mattered, right?
All I can say is that your arguements put you on the same side as tyrants like Stalin, Mao, Polpot, and Hitler. Mine put me in the company of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry. I hope you are proud of the group that shares your opinion, I certainly am proud of mine. They may not be perfect but they side with life, freedom, and respect for the self ownership of the individual.
That's silly. You don't seem to understand my argument. You seem to have missed the point to come to such a silly conclusion. I guess no internet discussion would be complete without someone proving Godwin's Law.
What I find silly is anyone who has faith in groups of people using force and violence over support of the individual.
My point was only that "natural rights" are a western philosophical concept, they don't exist outside of that context. We are very lucky that the fellows who founded our country were well educated in the philosophy of their day and culture. The vast majority of people on earth are not so lucky, for them instead free speech and the right to bear arms being obvious "natural rights" they are foreign concepts. If they were somehow magical and inherent then you would think they would be universal but sadly that is not so. In many ways the liberties we enjoy in America are an accident of history and a rare one instead of a natural human condition.
The philosophy you are talking about that those founders believed in was the philosophy of John Locke, almost to a person. Locke was the one who talked about natural rights. Might I suggest his 2 treatices on Government. Here is my article on Locke- https://steemit.com/freedom/@adamkokesh/kindling-the-fires-of-freedom-john-locke-forgotten-freedom-fighters
I'm very familiar with him.
Riiiiiight.
https://steemit.com/community/@kafkanarchy84/requesting-assistance