TakeYouToTasker

That's the best political piece I've seen in years.

birdog, and those like him, are precisely the reason that the national conversation in this country has become shrill, and the sides so polarized. You can't have a productive conversation with anyone who says "If you disagree with me, you're a racist." On your best day, you ignore everything that individual has to say, and on your worst, you punch him in the mouth. What you never do, however, is continue the conversation.

The Thigpen carousel continues to spin.

Republican democracy is an invented civil construct. Participation in that construct cannot, therefore, be natural.

A natural right is something that is intrinsic to someone's basic humanity: IE. The right to speak, the right to travel, the right to think and to exercise thoughts, the right to assemble and associate, etc. Voting is not intrinsic. Voting is the ability to participate in an invented civic structure. It is a privilege.

Individuals at Guantanamo may have had their natural rights violated, but they still possessed them; which is the entire basis for which an argument that their detention was morally wrong could be made. If they had no rights intrinsic to their humanity, then nothing wrong was done to them. Voting is not a natural right, it is a civic privilege.

I'm making an overarching moral argument about natural rights, and the immorality of slavery. As such, I felt it important to make the distinction between voluntary and involuntary servitude. Slavery, in and of itself is neither immoral nor wrong. It becomes wrong, however, when it is involuntary and non-contractual; when you take something from someone that they would otherwise naturally possess as a condition of their basic humanity. I'm doing this because the only intellectually honest way to make a "should" argument, is to explain the moral underpinnings. This isn't a political discussion, it's a moral one. Again, step away from the politics. Natural rights are part of the human condition. They are a fundamental part of us. Tom asked the question "In the absence of government, would you have the freedom of speech?" My answer is: Of course you would. Keep in mind, that's an entire different argument from "Could your rights be infringed?' My answer again: Of course they could. But then, that leads into a deeper discussion about the proper role of government in a society based on the concept of natural rights. Governments can either be instituted to defend those rights of their citizens, or to infringe those rights of their subjects; but they cannot to both, as the first is an admission that the people have absolute power over their government, and the second is an condition under which government has absolute power over it's people.

Why do you always revert to this kind of idiocy? Explain how an individual would not have the freedom of speech in the absence of government.

Then those aren't rights, much less "natural rights". They are privileges bestowed upon you by the powerful; able to be stripped away just as easily. Under that line of reason, there is no absolute moral wrong in slavery; because if rights exist under those conditions, then when those rights disappear, there is no alternative moral argument to be made in their favor.

Only when the arguments you are make across a spectrum of issues aren't logically consistent, the outcome being piecemeal and inconsistent morality, rife with special pleading. That's why you reject it. It's the only reason.

Pray tell, what are my "true intentions" birddog? Please tell me what I'm thinking. You can't even tell me what you're thinking when you make a moral argument. And you'll never survive on a debate forum, because you can't handle being challenged; and because you apparently can't differentiate between "winning a debate" and "holding the accurate position".

Arson is illegal for exactly the reasons I mentioned: the likely hood of spreading fire damaging adjacent properties. So let's refine your argument. The purpose of burning down ones home is to destroy it. You are perfectly free to demolish your home in other ways. And, as an aside, in many states you are permitted to burn down your home or other structures permitting that your burning is controlled so as not to spread, and the local fire departments have been notified and permissions granted.

How is that any different?

I've asked you a very serious question. Why do you reject protecting an individuals natural rights in the instance I've provided? I assume you support an individual's natural right to die: to terminate their own life, or to ask the assistance of another individual to help them end their life?

She should, in fact, be returned as a fugitive if apprehended. She consented. She voluntarily entered into contract. Why do you oppose the application of a person's natural rights in this instance?

That would depend on the nature of the contract. Would the contract specify that she retained her sexual rights? What is the duration of the contract? The bottom line is, that by signing such a contract she would have given her consent. If she consents, why is there a problem?

That has to do with insurance fraud, and the high probability of damaging property that isn't your own, due to the nature of fire and proximity in most residential neighborhoods. You are certainly free to destroy your own house, however.

Individuals can already agree, quite legally, to enter into contracts that allow them to be beaten and bound. Rape has no place in the discussion, because rape implies a lack of consent. Entering into a contract grants consent.

It may be distasteful, however if she voluntarily consented to the terms of the contract without being compelled by force or threat of violence, then it absolutely should be legal, and would not be morally wrong in the framework of natural rights. If a person can be said to own themselves, then they reserve the right to do with themselves as they see fit. He's making an appeal to emotion fallacy.

Wrong. Natural rights stem from self ownership. If you own yourself, you have the moral right to obligate yourself by entering into contract. If you don't believe this to be true, then you don't believe in self ownership, and therefore cannot believe in natural rights. If that's actually the case, then you'll have to make a different case for your opposition to slavery.

Yes, if you believe in natural rights and self ownership, then it's the only logically consistent stance.

So the extent of your argument is an appeal to the natural rights of man? Is that fair to say? And an example is indentured servitude.

That's the entirety of my reasoning. However, I also believe, that because of self ownership, it is perfectly moral for someone to sell themselves into slavery. Now, what's the rest of yours?

I've already stated my case in this very thread, so no. The natural rights of man are only part of your argument then? What's the other part?