I'll just make a statement that if "Preventing people from voting is authoritarian." then the US system of government at various points would have to be considered authoritarian.
Not the least bit relevant to the conversation, so I'll say it one more time: I'm happy to hear of any third option that isn't authoritarian.
Either you have an answer or you don't. The history of the U.S. is completely irrelevant to this question. I don't live in time when blacks couldn't vote or women couldn't vote, it's irrelevant to the conversation what the U.S. used to be or used to do.
Perhaps your panties are in a bunch because you think I think you're advocating a return to monarchy; I don't think that, so let it go. I think you're advocating for a return to the 1800's view of the constitution because you think it was a golden age of freedom before the federal government got so powerful. This is a typical anarcho-capitalist view and one I also disagree with.
However, trying to prevent people from voting is authoritarian whether it's from a king or from a congress and I won't support it under any circumstance. The people would certainly never vote to remove their right to vote.
I'm just challenging your absolutist statement. I don't have to come up with a third solution. That was never my objective. My point is that it's not wrong to think about it, and the act of going down that theoretical path doesn't automatically make it authoritarian.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
-- Declaration of Independence 1776
The words "Natural Law" and "Natural Rights" only makes sense in the philosophies of John Lock, which inspired the Declaration of Independence.
The ability to alter and change governments has been declared as a Natural Right in the declaration of independence.
Aside from that, "Natural Rights" don't exist. They are a concept created by our founding fathers to attempt to unite the nation. If you disagree with the founding father's definition of "Natural Rights", then the concept is dead and there is no point continuing to talk about the matter.
After all, like everything else that has been created by humans, these concepts are all imagination and fiction. Natural Rights do not exist in the real world, they are merely a concept created by people hundreds of years ago to attempt to unify this country.
Basically, a "Natural Right" is simply the rights that the United States of America were founded upon, the foundation of our Constitution, the foundation of our Revolution, and the foundation of the philosophies that created this country.
These rights are not shared with other countries, these concepts do not exist in other hypothetical governments. "Natural Rights" are simply the rights our founding fathers believed in. Nothing more, nothing less.
You're giving me a history lesson, again. You really should stop playing teacher. It sort of makes you come across as an ass. But I really want to believe that's not what you're going for, so I'll try my best to just remind you.
________
You're leaving out entire swaths of the DoI that explain where natural rights come from. But I find it interesting you pick part of the document to argue for what you want, and then try to lecture me about your own philosophy of where the rights come from.
I do believe that the Declaration of Independence ALSO leaves its explanation out. It declares the truths to be self-evident, and fails to elaborate upon those facts.
The term 'natural right' is nothing more than a glorified circular argument, embodied within the founding papers of our Government.
So you can either hold those truths to be self-evident and agree upon our founding fathers, or you can disagree. If you disagree, we will be unable to proceed with this debate however...
At this point I'm almost forced to call you intellectually dishonest!
Just finish off that tid-bit of quote you pulled, and you'll find they specify exactly where they come from — a Creator. Whether or not you believe in a Creator might determine whether you reject natural rights, but for those of us that aren't so quick to reject God, then there's a sound basis for believing in them.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
