Talk:Natural rights and legal rights/Archive 3

message: *There is nothing on Wikipedia with that title. You could've moved it yourself. --Apostrophe 05:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't imagine that it would have been problematic. Of course, I'm the kind of person who moves articles indiscrimately and deals with possible outcry afterwards. Perhaps not a good trait, but alas. Support, regardless. --Apostrophe 16:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Someone needs to go through this article, and examine these claims about the person named John Lilburne.  This info was put here by MPLX, who has constructed a series of questionable articles with the seeming purpose of inflating Lilburns's place in history.  See: John Lilburne Research Institute, Four Freedoms Federation, Self-incrimination, and the extremly questionable Province of the Carolanas.  --JW1805 03:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy Disputed

message: As the term "unalienable" is an archaic variant of "inalienable", and not to be found outside historical documents and descendants or discussions thereof, shouldn't this article be Inalienable rights? In all the political philosophy/theory books at which I've looked, the term used is "inalienable", so normal Wikipedia:Naming conventions presumably apply here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Some people claim that Argument A results in a morally good outcome because it keeps government from controlling civilians.  Yet because Argument A requires that human nature gives people and governments no choice in the existence of certain rights, claims of morality only observe that human nature creates a desirable outcome.  Whether or not the eventual outcome can be considered morally good, Argument A does not rely on morality for certain rights to exist.
Argument A is fundamentally different from Argument B.  Whether or not some people question the substance of these arguments, A and B have both been made and examples can clearly be divided into arguments of A or B.  We have two arguments and specific examples of each.  Our only remaining task is to determine what word or phrase in the English language is used to delineate Argument A, and what word or phrase is used to delineate Argument B. --D'Arby 17:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty easy to tell the difference between rights based on morals and rights based on what human nature will allow us to do.  If anyone in the history of the world has ever given up their right in a particular area, successfully and permanently, that right must be alienable.  --Zephram Stark 21:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble here is that the rights in question (those which the US DoI was written in order to secure) were already being abrogated by the King. As such, it hardly matters why they had the rights in the first place....--Habap 16:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison

message: I think that criticism should be limited to conclusions reached by independent sources, and should not include conclusions reached by Wikipedia editors. Do you agree or disagree?
* Agree --D'Arby 17:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: OK, if we're going to have a criticism section with anything resembling the current content, I believe it has to look more like this with names and references provided:
"Professors/scholars XXX and YYY and their followers, sometimes referred to as ZZZ, (add cite) have criticized the concept of inalienable rights for being largely groundless, since no explanation is given as to where these rights come from. These scholars contend that if inalienable rights are based on theological principles (as in "God-given rights"), one may ask which theological principles those are (since none of the major religions of the world confirms the existence of inalienable rights), or why those theological principles should be accepted by people who do not adhere to the religion from which they are derived.
Further, they say, if inalienable rights are said to be based on Natural Law, then this argument can easily be criticized for being a non sequitur and an example of the naturalistic fallacy. The phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident" has been accused of being simply a more elegant version of "Because we said so".
Followers of this school of thought further believe that existence of inalienable rights is unnecessary for the existence of a constitution or a set of laws and rights and that rights and responsibilities are derived from a consensual social contract between the government and the people.
This line of reasoning has itself been criticized by...(add cite)"
Otherwise, I'd prefer to delete the whole section.  FRS 18:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly accept the assume good faith maxim as a general rule, but where one user asserts a fact first edit that another user immediately disputes [second edit], what's a poor newbie to do?  Besides, saying "these issues are dealt with" is itself weaselly since it doesn't necessarily mean that the authors of the cited sources hold the views expressed in the criticism section.  For all one knows, they "deal with" them by trashing them.  I think its reasonable to ask not only that criticism should be limited to conclusions reached by independent sources but that those sources be specifically identified. FRS 20:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This statement from the review you linked seems most pertinent here: "I doubt there is any prospect of agreement amongst scholars...." FRS 20:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section/PROPOSAL 

message: Since the main person who had such a big problem with this article (Zephram Stark) has now been banned for 6 months  for disruptive behavior, is this discussion over now?  If so, I'm going to move all this to the Archive 1 (since it is a continuation of a discussion from there).  --JW1805 16:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: End of discussion?